Kekkonen, Kekkonen, Kekkonen..

[Nevanmaa]

I'm starting this thread to prevent an approaching threadjack in another thread. Here's some Kekkoslovakian democracy to get you in the mood.

Anyway. Urho Kaleva Kekkonen was the eight and longest-serving president of Finland from 1956 to 1982. He was an extremely divisive president. Some claim that he managed to succesfully balance Finland between the Soviet Union and the West, and his contributions to maintaining positive trade relations with the Soviet Union can't be denied. On the other hand, he was a ruthless president who stamped out nearly all opposition and effectively ruled as a dictator during his final terms by forcing the Parliament to pass a bill that gave him another term, in direct violation of the Finnish constitution. He also ruthlessly used his connections with the Soviet Union to discredit his opponents and was the orchestrator of the greatest miscarriage of justice in Finnish history, the war-responsibility trials.

So, what's your opinion on Kekkonen? Was the a good or a bad president?

---

..and in response to New Chalcedon's post in another thread.

And it appears that, as per usual, you are living in a different reality from the rest of the world. Kekkonen (leader of the Centrist Party, not the Communist, Socialist or even Social-Democratic Parties) pursued a policy of neutrality in the Cold War (inherited from his predecessor, President Paasikivi), encouraging trade with both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, which was a key factor in Finland's three decades of sustained economic growth from 1956-1986.

It appears that you're getting your information from Wikipedia.

As I mentioned earlier, Kekkonen despised democracy: he voiced disapproval when someone dared to run against him in presidential elections, and he forced the Parliament to pass a bill that granted him an extra term in office without democratic elections; a direct violation of the Finnish constitution.

Kekkonen only managed to stay in power because of blatantly obvious support from the Soviet Union; when it seemed that Kekkonen would lose the presidential elections, he asked the Soviet Union to send a note to Finland demanding joint military excersises. He then "heroically" negotiated with the Soviet leadership so Finland wouldn't have to participate, thus meaning winning the presidential elections.

Kekkonen was also the orchestrator of greatest miscarriage of justice in Finnish history: the war-responsibility trials in which innocent men were punished simply to satisfy Soviet bloodlust.

Kekkonen destroyed Finnish democracy. By the 1970s, there was no true opposition in Finland. All opposition to Kekkonen was been stamped and destroyed, and Finland remained in a stagnated, "Kekkoslovakian" state until the old bastard finally died in 1982.

It appears that, according to the World As Pronounced By Hippostania, anything other than unwavering devotion to the dictates of the United States was "licking the Soviet ass.

I've done quite a bit of research on the Kekkonen-era stagnation, thank you. Finland was by no means "neutral" during the Cold War, we were just a slightly more democratic Eastern Bloc country. Kekkonen was a ruthless dictator who only managed to win his first elections with Soviet support and later by stamping out all opposition.

[Ceannairceach]

Using my limited knowledge of Finnish and a passing glance, I imagined that this thread would be very, very different. I almost feel like it'd be a better title given the subject matter.

Anyway, Kekkonen was far from a good ruler. I can't say I disagreed with certain policies--the Nordic nuclear free zone comes to mind as a good one--but all in all he was more dictator than president. I can't fault him for trying to keep the balance between Soviet and American influence, but I can criticize him for doing so at the cost of democracy. I would term him a casualty of nationalism if anything, and be thankful that his reign led to reform that would limit the chances of someone like him returning.

[Scholencia]

He was a traitor since with his rule Karelia was finally sold to the USSR. He also did not do anything to preserve the Finnish culture in Vipurri and instead he was a soviet puppet. There would be a chance if Stalin did not abolished this Finnish republic within the USSR which is now Republic of Karelia.

[Nevanmaa]

He was a traitor since with his rule Karelia was finally sold to the USSR. He also did not do anything to preserve the Finnish culture in Vipurri and instead he was a soviet puppet. There would be a chance if Stalin did not abolished this Finnish republic within the USSR which is now Republic of Karelia.

To be fair, Viipuri was never a part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, it was integrated to the Leningrad Oblast almost immidiately after the Winter War.

Also, the request to abolish the Karelo-Finnish SSR did not come from Russia; it came from president Paasikivi. It was thought that by abolishing the SSR, it would help to heal the old wounds of the war. A good idea at the time, but a huge mistake by hindsight.

[Lacum]

Kekkonen was a strong president because back then president had power quite alot. But the biggiest change in finnish politics compared to 80's for example is that soviet union (and russia today) doesn't have such power in politics. Also president was elected different way.

Social Democratic Party of Finland tried to oppose president Kekkonen and soviet positive line trough out the 50's. The party was splitted and they suffered a great loss in elections 1962. After that, they changed their line and named new speaker for the party. Next elections were in 1966 and that time they witnessed a huge victory. They were smart. National Coalition Party however is a different story. They turned their back to USSR. And because they didn't have any relations with president kekkonen, they were major opposition party from early 60's to the end of 80's. And in the 80's they realised that they weren't doing quite well, so they did the thing that social democrats did ages ago. Although they couldn't co-operate with any of the three other major parties before it. They were Social Democrats, Peoples Democratic Alliance and Centre Party.

Finland is unique country because politics is not (usualy) based on coalitions made in elections, but for co-operation with the others. And there are more than just two big parties.

[Ganos Lao]

As I mentioned earlier, Kekkonen despised democracy: he voiced disapproval when someone dared to run against him in presidential elections, and he forced the Parliament to pass a bill that granted him an extra term in office without democratic elections; a direct violation of the Finnish constitution.

Kekkonen despised Finnish democracy.

Why do you act like democracy is some sacred, inviolable right of the people when you explictly came out in support of the Axis powers who were rather anti-democratic and hell bent on destroying the human rights of those deemed undesirable?

Kekkonen was a ruthless dictator who only managed to win his first elections with Soviet support and later by stamping out all opposition.

Hitler and the Japanese militarists are known as ruthless dictators, yet you have no problem with them, even as they stamped out all opposition. You simply have no problem with it.

By the way:

When a country right next to an evil empire that was the Soviet Union

But the Third Reich and Empire of Japan were surely bastions of freedom and liberty. They were really just organizing a humanitarian aid mission in Nanking, helping all those poor Chinese people out after suffering through the chaos of conflict. Oh, and Auschwitz was clearly just the Third Reich's attempt to look out for the poor and downtrodden of their society, making sure they get proper medical attention, find jobs, etc. I mean, the Warsaw Ghetto, man, totally some good work done there, right? Yeah.

Yup, sounds like Kekkonen. Two tyrants, but unfortunately only one of them was overthrown.

Yep. Tyrants.

All the while Hitler was glorious defender of Finnish freedom, of freedom in general. Nothing says freedom fighter like gassing a couple thousand Jews while using Finnish troops to help in your aim of exterminating and enslaving your opponents. But apparently I'm mistaken. Hitler was a good guy! Hell, Hippo's on record saying Hitler would've let Finland keep their Jews of whose very existence he said:

then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.

(But, wait, folks, he'd be willing to, get this, spare the Finnish Jews! Even though he's basically saying we're going to aim to destroy them utterly. Imagine that, eh?)

Being Anti-democracy just never gets old does it hippo?

I might be anti-democracy sometimes, but that's only because I'm pro-freedom. No elected official has a right to violate property rights like Mossadegh did.

What, then, pray tell, of the Nazi confiscation of Jewish property? Remember how Jewish-owned businesses were gradually forced to sell out to (non-Jewish) Germans? Remember how by January 1, 1938, German Jews were prohibited from operating businesses and trades, and from offering goods and services. On 26 April 1938, Jews were ordered to report all wealth over 5,000 Reichsmarks, and their access to bank accounts was restricted. Yeah, such respect of property rights there, eh?

What, then, pray tell, of the Nazi confiscation of paintings and other valuables from non-Jews? Remember how Goering and his cronies basically looted from the cities the Wehrmacht marched through?

What, then, pray tell, of your blatant hypocrisy when the Axis Powers exercised this strain of eminent domain pretty often? Oh, wait, their victims were Russians? Oh, well, it doesn't matter. Being threatened with extermination and enslavement is simply karmic justice because you picked on the poor Finns, even though you never once considered any such policies against them.

In honor of Gauthier, I present the Hippostania Theorem:

Dictators and the like who are associated with the left wing of the political spectrums: Evil, depraved, sick fucks who ought to be deposed and condemned, their enemies lauded as heroes.

Dictators and the like who are associated with the right wing of the politicial spectrum: Good, pure of heart, saintly men who ought to be cherished, their enemies condemned as traitors.

I mean:

Kekkonen was also the orchestrator of greatest miscarriage of justice in Finnish history: the war-responsibility trials in which innocent men were punished simply to satisfy Soviet bloodlust.

It's funny when you can devote such time and energy to condemning anyone with even an inkling of "hey, the Soviets, they aren't too bad!" in them, but when you're repeatedly asked about it, the guys who orchestrated the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking and the work of Unit 731, and other deeds done in association with them by their puppet states, all of whom had innocent victims (but then you'll claim, well, some of them attacked Nazi Germany, so it's only fair; I guess you'd think the razing of Lidice was a just exercise of self-defense then, right?), you're incapable of even acknowledging any such questions.

You are incapable of doing anything but whining that "people here just spam me with Nazis iz bad!!!!!" even though you've given not one single explanation of how they weren't so bad (and, of course, you conveniently ignore that whole fact about the Imperial Japanese being their allies) that you can quote. Go on, do it. Go and quote me five instances of you trying to explain while people bombard you with this alleged spam.

It's not only intellectually dishonest, but very insensitive towards your fellow posters. Chinese, Korean, Jewish, Slavic, Romani, etc posters on here must be very pissed off at you. You wonder why the mods deleted you? Why you get such a poor reputation around here? It's not because we're "liberals" and "leftists" and shit like that, but because you just post a bunch of undocumented, at times even fradulent apparently, nonsense and then get your knickers in a twist when people are mad about it!

Not that you care, of course. It's all about that euphoria of self-righteousness to you, that incredible feeling you get when the libtards get mad because they just don't understand you and your superior right wing beliefs (and you can't even get this right, because you say the Nazis were A-OK and then pull a U-turn and say Israeli expansion is awesome - you can't have it both ways)

To hell with the innocent, can I stress this enough, because that's usually how history judges them, victims of the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking, those dirty Slavs and Commie Chinese are irrelevant. Why should I care about them? They simply all get in the way of my points. That's how you approach this sort of criticism.

Or maybe it's because you have no idea about the subject and you're just spouting bullshit

Despite Hippo's bleating on that the Soviets (who, I'll be honest, I'm not too fond of either) stole Finnish land, he's all for people who stole Chinese land (the Imperial Japanese invading Manchuria and creating Manchukuo).

Despite Hippo's bleating on that the Soviets terrorized Finland, he's all for people who terrorized the rest of Europe and the Far East.

Because it's just like the theorem says. It just don't matter, folks, because human life only matters if you fit into Hippo's hypocritical, contradictory paradox of a worldview. If you don't, well, too bad. You're not even worth an acknowledgment that you even existed.

And I just know Hippo will ignore the contents of this post and proceed to do little more than whine about how I must be a "liberal" or some such shit.

[Geilinor]

I have never heard "Kekkonen was a dictator" before. He stayed in power because he was supported by grand coalitions.

[Shofercia]

As I mentioned earlier, Kekkonen despised democracy: he voiced disapproval when someone dared to run against him in presidential elections, and he forced the Parliament to pass a bill that granted him an extra term in office without democratic elections; a direct violation of the Finnish constitution.

Kekkonen despised Finnish democracy.

Why do you act like democracy is some sacred, inviolable right of the people when you explictly came out in support of the Axis powers who were rather anti-democratic and hell bent on destroying the human rights of those deemed undesirable?

Kekkonen was a ruthless dictator who only managed to win his first elections with Soviet support and later by stamping out all opposition.

Hitler and the Japanese militarists are known as ruthless dictators, yet you have no problem with them, even as they stamped out all opposition. You simply have no problem with it.

By the way:

When a country right next to an evil empire that was the Soviet Union

But the Third Reich and Empire of Japan were surely bastions of freedom and liberty. They were really just organizing a humanitarian aid mission in Nanking, helping all those poor Chinese people out. Yeh

Yup, sounds like Kekkonen. Two tyrants, but unfortunately only one of them was overthrown.

Yep. Tyrants.

All the while Hitler was glorious defender of Finnish freedom, of freedom in general. Nothing says freedom fighter like gassing a couple thousand Jews while using Finnish troops to help in your aim of exterminating and enslaving your opponents. But apparently I'm mistaken. Hitler was a good guy! Hell, Hippo's on record saying Hitler would've let Finland keep their Jews of whose very existence he said:

then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.

(But, wait, folks, he'd be willing to, get this, spare the Finnish Jews! Even though he's basically saying we're going to aim to destroy them utterly. Imagine that, eh?)

I might be anti-democracy sometimes, but that's only because I'm pro-freedom. No elected official has a right to violate property rights like Mossadegh did.

What, then, pray tell, of the Nazi confiscation of Jewish property? Remember how Jewish-owned businesses were gradually forced to sell out to (non-Jewish) Germans? Remember how by January 1, 1938, German Jews were prohibited from operating businesses and trades, and from offering goods and services. On 26 April 1938, Jews were ordered to report all wealth over 5,000 Reichsmarks, and their access to bank accounts was restricted. Yeah, such respect of property rights there, eh?

What, then, pray tell, of the Nazi confiscation of paintings and other valuables from non-Jews? Remember how Goering and his cronies basically looted from the cities the Wehrmacht marched through?

What, then, pray tell, of your blatant hypocrisy when the Axis Powers exercised this strain of eminent domain pretty often? Oh, wait, their victims were Russians? Oh, well, it doesn't matter. Being threatened with extermination and enslavement is simply karmic justice because you picked on the poor Finns, even though you never once considered any such policies against them.

In honor of Gauthier, I present the Hippostania Theorem:

Dictators and the like who are associated with the left wing of the political spectrums: Evil, depraved, sick fucks who ought to be deposed and condemned.

Dictators and the like who are associated with the right wing of the politicial spectrum: Good, pure of heart, saintly men who ought to be cherished, their enemies condemned as traitors.

I mean:

Kekkonen was also the orchestrator of greatest miscarriage of justice in Finnish history: the war-responsibility trials in which innocent men were punished simply to satisfy Soviet bloodlust.

It's funny when you can devote such time and energy to condemning anyone with even an inkling of "hey, the Soviets, they aren't too bad!" in them, but when you're repeatedly asked about it, the guys who orchestrated the Holocaust and Rape of Nanking and the work of Unit 731, and other deeds done in association with them by their puppet states, all of whom had innocent victims (but then you'll claim, well, some of them attacked Nazi Germany, so it's only fair; I guess you'd think the razing of Lidice was a just exercise of self-defense then, right?), you're incapable of even acknowledging any such questions.

You are incapable of doing anything but whining that "people here just spam me with Nazis iz bad!!!!!" even though you've given not one single explanation of how they weren't so bad (and, of course, you conveniently ignore that whole fact about the Imperial Japanese being their allies) that you can quote. Go on, do it. Go and quote me five instances of you trying to explain while people bombard you with this alleged spam.

It's not only intellectually dishonest, but very insensitive towards your fellow posters. Chinese, Korean, Jewish, Slavic, Romani, etc posters on here must be very pissed off at you. You wonder why the mods deleted you? Why you get such a poor reputation around here? It's not because we're "liberals" and "leftists" and shit like that, but because you just post a bunch of undocumented, at times even fradulent apparently, nonsense and then get your knickers in a twist when people are mad about it!

Not that you care, of course. It's all about that euphoria of self-righteousness to you, that incredible feeling you get when the libtards get mad because they just don't understand you and your superior right wing beliefs (and you can't even get this right, because you say the Nazis were A-OK and then pull a U-turn and say Israeli expansion is awesome - you can't have it both ways)

To hell with the innocent, can I stress this enough, because that's usually how history judges them, victims of the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking, those dirty Slavs and Commie Chinese are irrelevant. Why should I care about them? They simply all get in the way of my points. That's how you approach this sort of criticism.

Or maybe it's because you have no idea about the subject and you're just spouting bullshit

Despite Hippo's bleating on that the Soviets (who, I'll be honest, I'm not too fond of either) stole Finnish land, he's all for people who stole Chinese land (the Imperial Japanese invading Manchuria and creating Manchukuo).

Despite Hippo's bleating on that the Soviets terrorized Finland, he's all for people who terrorized the rest of Europe and the Far East.

Because it's just like the theorem says. It just don't matter, folks, because human life only matters if you fit into Hippo's hypocritical, contradictory paradox of a worldview. If you don't, well, too bad. You're not even worth an acknowledgment that you even existed.

And I just know Hippo will ignore the contents of this post and proceed to do little more than whine about how I must be a "liberal" or some such shit.

Damn! That is a damn good explanation of why the "Commies" of NSG dislike someone who's "more Patriotic than xx million Americans!"

Well done Ganos Lao, well done!

[Arglorand]

-bloody fucking burn right there-

Oh, there is a very specific topic for a very specific sort of posts that I am shipping this to.

[Ganos Lao]

Damn! That is a damn good explanation of why the "Commies" of NSG dislike someone who's "more Patriotic than xx million Americans!"

Well done Ganos Lao, well done!

Thanks. I just have a rather low tolerance for bullshit, regardless of the source.

[Ganos Lao]

-bloody fucking burn right there-

Oh, there is a very specific topic for a very specific sort of posts that I am shipping this to.

I'm glad to be of service.

[Shofercia]

Damn! That is a damn good explanation of why the "Commies" of NSG dislike someone who's "more Patriotic than xx million Americans!"

Well done Ganos Lao, well done!

Thanks. I just have a rather low tolerance for bullshit, regardless of the source.

Me too!

[Vetalia]

Let's be honest, if you're a nation like Finland bordering a nation like the USSR what the hell else are you going to do but cooperate with them? Finland getting close to the United States/NATO would be just like Canada getting close to the Soviet Union, with predictably bad consequences for both nations.

[Scholencia]

He was a traitor since with his rule Karelia was finally sold to the USSR. He also did not do anything to preserve the Finnish culture in Vipurri and instead he was a soviet puppet. There would be a chance if Stalin did not abolished this Finnish republic within the USSR which is now Republic of Karelia.

To be fair, Viipuri was never a part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, it was integrated to the Leningrad Oblast almost immidiately after the Winter War.

Also, the request to abolish the Karelo-Finnish SSR did not come from Russia; it came from president Paasikivi. It was thought that by abolishing the SSR, it would help to heal the old wounds of the war. A good idea at the time, but a huge mistake by hindsight.

Imagine if the Karelo-Finnish SSR survived until the fall of communism, it might secede from the USSR and become part of Finland again.

[Maineiacs]

As I mentioned earlier, Kekkonen despised democracy: he voiced disapproval when someone dared to run against him in presidential elections, and he forced the Parliament to pass a bill that granted him an extra term in office without democratic elections; a direct violation of the Finnish constitution.

Kekkonen despised Finnish democracy.

Why do you act like democracy is some sacred, inviolable right of the people when you explictly came out in support of the Axis powers who were rather anti-democratic and hell bent on destroying the human rights of those deemed undesirable?

Kekkonen was a ruthless dictator who only managed to win his first elections with Soviet support and later by stamping out all opposition.

Hitler and the Japanese militarists are known as ruthless dictators, yet you have no problem with them, even as they stamped out all opposition. You simply have no problem with it.

By the way:

When a country right next to an evil empire that was the Soviet Union

But the Third Reich and Empire of Japan were surely bastions of freedom and liberty. They were really just organizing a humanitarian aid mission in Nanking, helping all those poor Chinese people out after suffering through the chaos of conflict. Oh, and Auschwitz was clearly just the Third Reich's attempt to look out for the poor and downtrodden of their society, making sure they get proper medical attention, find jobs, etc. I mean, the Warsaw Ghetto, man, totally some good work done there, right? Yeah.

Yup, sounds like Kekkonen. Two tyrants, but unfortunately only one of them was overthrown.

Yep. Tyrants.

All the while Hitler was glorious defender of Finnish freedom, of freedom in general. Nothing says freedom fighter like gassing a couple thousand Jews while using Finnish troops to help in your aim of exterminating and enslaving your opponents. But apparently I'm mistaken. Hitler was a good guy! Hell, Hippo's on record saying Hitler would've let Finland keep their Jews of whose very existence he said:

then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.

(But, wait, folks, he'd be willing to, get this, spare the Finnish Jews! Even though he's basically saying we're going to aim to destroy them utterly. Imagine that, eh?)

I might be anti-democracy sometimes, but that's only because I'm pro-freedom. No elected official has a right to violate property rights like Mossadegh did.

What, then, pray tell, of the Nazi confiscation of Jewish property? Remember how Jewish-owned businesses were gradually forced to sell out to (non-Jewish) Germans? Remember how by January 1, 1938, German Jews were prohibited from operating businesses and trades, and from offering goods and services. On 26 April 1938, Jews were ordered to report all wealth over 5,000 Reichsmarks, and their access to bank accounts was restricted. Yeah, such respect of property rights there, eh?

What, then, pray tell, of the Nazi confiscation of paintings and other valuables from non-Jews? Remember how Goering and his cronies basically looted from the cities the Wehrmacht marched through?

What, then, pray tell, of your blatant hypocrisy when the Axis Powers exercised this strain of eminent domain pretty often? Oh, wait, their victims were Russians? Oh, well, it doesn't matter. Being threatened with extermination and enslavement is simply karmic justice because you picked on the poor Finns, even though you never once considered any such policies against them.

In honor of Gauthier, I present the Hippostania Theorem:

Dictators and the like who are associated with the left wing of the political spectrums: Evil, depraved, sick fucks who ought to be deposed and condemned, their enemies lauded as heroes.

Dictators and the like who are associated with the right wing of the politicial spectrum: Good, pure of heart, saintly men who ought to be cherished, their enemies condemned as traitors.

I mean:

Kekkonen was also the orchestrator of greatest miscarriage of justice in Finnish history: the war-responsibility trials in which innocent men were punished simply to satisfy Soviet bloodlust.

It's funny when you can devote such time and energy to condemning anyone with even an inkling of "hey, the Soviets, they aren't too bad!" in them, but when you're repeatedly asked about it, the guys who orchestrated the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking and the work of Unit 731, and other deeds done in association with them by their puppet states, all of whom had innocent victims (but then you'll claim, well, some of them attacked Nazi Germany, so it's only fair; I guess you'd think the razing of Lidice was a just exercise of self-defense then, right?), you're incapable of even acknowledging any such questions.

You are incapable of doing anything but whining that "people here just spam me with Nazis iz bad!!!!!" even though you've given not one single explanation of how they weren't so bad (and, of course, you conveniently ignore that whole fact about the Imperial Japanese being their allies) that you can quote. Go on, do it. Go and quote me five instances of you trying to explain while people bombard you with this alleged spam.

It's not only intellectually dishonest, but very insensitive towards your fellow posters. Chinese, Korean, Jewish, Slavic, Romani, etc posters on here must be very pissed off at you. You wonder why the mods deleted you? Why you get such a poor reputation around here? It's not because we're "liberals" and "leftists" and shit like that, but because you just post a bunch of undocumented, at times even fradulent apparently, nonsense and then get your knickers in a twist when people are mad about it!

Not that you care, of course. It's all about that euphoria of self-righteousness to you, that incredible feeling you get when the libtards get mad because they just don't understand you and your superior right wing beliefs (and you can't even get this right, because you say the Nazis were A-OK and then pull a U-turn and say Israeli expansion is awesome - you can't have it both ways)

To hell with the innocent, can I stress this enough, because that's usually how history judges them, victims of the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking, those dirty Slavs and Commie Chinese are irrelevant. Why should I care about them? They simply all get in the way of my points. That's how you approach this sort of criticism.

Or maybe it's because you have no idea about the subject and you're just spouting bullshit

Despite Hippo's bleating on that the Soviets (who, I'll be honest, I'm not too fond of either) stole Finnish land, he's all for people who stole Chinese land (the Imperial Japanese invading Manchuria and creating Manchukuo).

Despite Hippo's bleating on that the Soviets terrorized Finland, he's all for people who terrorized the rest of Europe and the Far East.

Because it's just like the theorem says. It just don't matter, folks, because human life only matters if you fit into Hippo's hypocritical, contradictory paradox of a worldview. If you don't, well, too bad. You're not even worth an acknowledgment that you even existed.

And I just know Hippo will ignore the contents of this post and proceed to do little more than whine about how I must be a "liberal" or some such shit.

Well played, sir. I tip my hat to you.

[Esperantujo 2]

To be fair, Viipuri was never a part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, it was integrated to the Leningrad Oblast almost immidiately after the Winter War.

Also, the request to abolish the Karelo-Finnish SSR did not come from Russia; it came from president Paasikivi. It was thought that by abolishing the SSR, it would help to heal the old wounds of the war. A good idea at the time, but a huge mistake by hindsight.

Imagine if the Karelo-Finnish SSR survived until the fall of communism, it might secede from the USSR and become part of Finland again.

Moldova is a parallel case and still independent.
I don't know how much the isthmus and the area to the NE of it was ethnically Finnish in 1939. Finland was stuck between Sweden and Russia inevitably. Tsar Peter the Great and Stalin have got to share the blame here. If Sweden had won the Great Northern War, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Latvia would have faced slightly different problems.
Wartime Finland, unlike Croatia or even Norway to some extent, wasn't a Nazi state, any more than wartime Britain and America were Stalinist states. It was an alliance of convenience.
Correct me if I'm wrong. My local party were going to have a discussion on Finland, but the comrade and her family went back to Finland before it could be arranged.

[Nevanmaa]

As I mentioned earlier, Kekkonen despised democracy: he voiced disapproval when someone dared to run against him in presidential elections, and he forced the Parliament to pass a bill that granted him an extra term in office without democratic elections; a direct violation of the Finnish constitution.

Kekkonen despised Finnish democracy.

Why do you act like democracy is some sacred, inviolable right of the people when you explictly came out in support of the Axis powers who were rather anti-democratic and hell bent on destroying the human rights of those deemed undesirable?

Kekkonen was a ruthless dictator who only managed to win his first elections with Soviet support and later by stamping out all opposition.

Hitler and the Japanese militarists are known as ruthless dictators, yet you have no problem with them, even as they stamped out all opposition. You simply have no problem with it.

By the way:

When a country right next to an evil empire that was the Soviet Union

But the Third Reich and Empire of Japan were surely bastions of freedom and liberty. They were really just organizing a humanitarian aid mission in Nanking, helping all those poor Chinese people out after suffering through the chaos of conflict. Oh, and Auschwitz was clearly just the Third Reich's attempt to look out for the poor and downtrodden of their society, making sure they get proper medical attention, find jobs, etc. I mean, the Warsaw Ghetto, man, totally some good work done there, right? Yeah.

Yup, sounds like Kekkonen. Two tyrants, but unfortunately only one of them was overthrown.

Yep. Tyrants.

All the while Hitler was glorious defender of Finnish freedom, of freedom in general. Nothing says freedom fighter like gassing a couple thousand Jews while using Finnish troops to help in your aim of exterminating and enslaving your opponents. But apparently I'm mistaken. Hitler was a good guy! Hell, Hippo's on record saying Hitler would've let Finland keep their Jews of whose very existence he said:

then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.

(But, wait, folks, he'd be willing to, get this, spare the Finnish Jews! Even though he's basically saying we're going to aim to destroy them utterly. Imagine that, eh?)

I might be anti-democracy sometimes, but that's only because I'm pro-freedom. No elected official has a right to violate property rights like Mossadegh did.

What, then, pray tell, of the Nazi confiscation of Jewish property? Remember how Jewish-owned businesses were gradually forced to sell out to (non-Jewish) Germans? Remember how by January 1, 1938, German Jews were prohibited from operating businesses and trades, and from offering goods and services. On 26 April 1938, Jews were ordered to report all wealth over 5,000 Reichsmarks, and their access to bank accounts was restricted. Yeah, such respect of property rights there, eh?

What, then, pray tell, of the Nazi confiscation of paintings and other valuables from non-Jews? Remember how Goering and his cronies basically looted from the cities the Wehrmacht marched through?

What, then, pray tell, of your blatant hypocrisy when the Axis Powers exercised this strain of eminent domain pretty often? Oh, wait, their victims were Russians? Oh, well, it doesn't matter. Being threatened with extermination and enslavement is simply karmic justice because you picked on the poor Finns, even though you never once considered any such policies against them.

In honor of Gauthier, I present the Hippostania Theorem:

Dictators and the like who are associated with the left wing of the political spectrums: Evil, depraved, sick fucks who ought to be deposed and condemned, their enemies lauded as heroes.

Dictators and the like who are associated with the right wing of the politicial spectrum: Good, pure of heart, saintly men who ought to be cherished, their enemies condemned as traitors.

I mean:

Kekkonen was also the orchestrator of greatest miscarriage of justice in Finnish history: the war-responsibility trials in which innocent men were punished simply to satisfy Soviet bloodlust.

It's funny when you can devote such time and energy to condemning anyone with even an inkling of "hey, the Soviets, they aren't too bad!" in them, but when you're repeatedly asked about it, the guys who orchestrated the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking and the work of Unit 731, and other deeds done in association with them by their puppet states, all of whom had innocent victims (but then you'll claim, well, some of them attacked Nazi Germany, so it's only fair; I guess you'd think the razing of Lidice was a just exercise of self-defense then, right?), you're incapable of even acknowledging any such questions.

You are incapable of doing anything but whining that "people here just spam me with Nazis iz bad!!!!!" even though you've given not one single explanation of how they weren't so bad (and, of course, you conveniently ignore that whole fact about the Imperial Japanese being their allies) that you can quote. Go on, do it. Go and quote me five instances of you trying to explain while people bombard you with this alleged spam.

It's not only intellectually dishonest, but very insensitive towards your fellow posters. Chinese, Korean, Jewish, Slavic, Romani, etc posters on here must be very pissed off at you. You wonder why the mods deleted you? Why you get such a poor reputation around here? It's not because we're "liberals" and "leftists" and shit like that, but because you just post a bunch of undocumented, at times even fradulent apparently, nonsense and then get your knickers in a twist when people are mad about it!

Not that you care, of course. It's all about that euphoria of self-righteousness to you, that incredible feeling you get when the libtards get mad because they just don't understand you and your superior right wing beliefs (and you can't even get this right, because you say the Nazis were A-OK and then pull a U-turn and say Israeli expansion is awesome - you can't have it both ways)

To hell with the innocent, can I stress this enough, because that's usually how history judges them, victims of the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking, those dirty Slavs and Commie Chinese are irrelevant. Why should I care about them? They simply all get in the way of my points. That's how you approach this sort of criticism.

Or maybe it's because you have no idea about the subject and you're just spouting bullshit

Despite Hippo's bleating on that the Soviets (who, I'll be honest, I'm not too fond of either) stole Finnish land, he's all for people who stole Chinese land (the Imperial Japanese invading Manchuria and creating Manchukuo).

Despite Hippo's bleating on that the Soviets terrorized Finland, he's all for people who terrorized the rest of Europe and the Far East.

Because it's just like the theorem says. It just don't matter, folks, because human life only matters if you fit into Hippo's hypocritical, contradictory paradox of a worldview. If you don't, well, too bad. You're not even worth an acknowledgment that you even existed.

And I just know Hippo will ignore the contents of this post and proceed to do little more than whine about how I must be a "liberal" or some such shit.

Don't threadjack. This thread is about Kekkonen and has nothing to do with Iran, WWII, Hitler or jews. If you want to spout hippo-hate, at least do it so while participating in the active topic

[Ganos Lao]

-snip-

You say that you are pro-freedom. I am merely highlighting how you are not. It can be said that no lover of freedom would ever endorse the Nazi regime winning as being "better off" for anyone.

You condemn Kekkoken and Mossadagh for infringing on property rights and being tyrants. Yet you say nothing when the Axis Powers you said should've won World War II did the exact same things you accuse the aforementioned leaders of doing. I think that's rather hypocritical, and it deserves attention.

How is it threadjacking? Really, how is it?

If I had said the Confederate States winning the Civil War would've been better off for the United States, would I be pressed to give evidence? You damn well bet I would be. It would be seen as very poor form to make the claim and then not even bother to address it. Would I be blasted if I said something along the lines (after endorsing a regime of slavers) of "hey, Saddam Hussein, we were right to depose him because he oppresses his people"? Of course I would be.

When you post stupid shit like "Axis good, Soviets bad," don't be surprised that people are going to call you out on it.

[Anachronous Rex]

Gesundheit.

[Nevanmaa]

-snip-

You say that you are pro-freedom. I am merely highlighting how you are not. It can be said that no lover of freedom would ever endorse the Nazi regime winning as being "better off" for anyone.

You condemn Kekkoken and Mossadagh for infringing on property rights and being tyrants. Yet you say nothing when the Axis Powers you said should've won World War II did the exact same things you accuse the aforementioned leaders of doing. I think that's rather hypocritical, and it deserves attention.

How is it threadjacking? Really, how is it?

If I had said the Confederate States winning the Civil War would've been better off for the United States, would I be pressed to give evidence? You damn well bet I would be. It would be seen as very poor form to make the claim and then not even bother to address it. Would I be blasted if I said something along the lines (after endorsing a regime of slavers) of "hey, Saddam Hussein, we were right to depose him because he oppresses his people"? Of course I would be.

When you post stupid shit like "Axis good, Soviets bad," don't be surprised that people are going to call you out on it.

This thread isn't about my statements and opinions, it's about presidency of Urho Kekkonen. Right now you are attacking me as a person, not my arguments. If you want to argue about me, I suggest that you start a new thread and stop threadjacking.

[The Archregimancy]

In honor of Gauthier, I present the Hippostania Theorem:

Dictators and the like who are associated with the left wing of the political spectrums: Evil, depraved, sick fucks who ought to be deposed and condemned, their enemies lauded as heroes.

Dictators and the like who are associated with the right wing of the politicial spectrum: Good, pure of heart, saintly men who ought to be cherished, their enemies condemned as traitors.

That's not the 'Hippostania Theorem' - that's the 'Kirkpatrick Doctrine' (admittedly slightly exaggerated), as taken from her famous and highly influential 1979 article "Dictatorships and Double Standards".

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... standards/

Kirkpatrick explicitly formulated the Reagan-era distinction between 'traditional' right-wing autocratic states (which were held to be acceptable so long as they were pro-American) and 'revolutionary' autocratic regimes (which were, unsurprisingly, held to be bad).

The foreign policy of the Carter administration fails not for lack of good intentions but for lack of realism about the nature of traditional versus revolutionary autocracies and the relation of each to the American national interest. Only intellectual fashion and the tyranny of Right/Left thinking prevent intelligent men of good will from perceiving the facts that traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies, that they are more susceptible of liberalization, and that they are more compatible with U.S. interests.

.....

Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other resources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees.

Precisely the opposite is true of revolutionary Communist regimes. They create refugees by the million because they claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands in the remarkable expectation that their attitudes, values, and goals will "fit" better in a foreign country than in their native land.

Doesn't anyone remember Jeane Kirkpatrick anymore?


Not sure how someone like Kekkoken fits into Kirkpatrick's argument, but I suspect that she would have seen him as an acceptable 'traditional' autocrat rather than as an unacceptable 'revolutionary' autocrat. I see nothing to suggest that Reaganite Republicans would have been, or should be, opposed to him.

[The Holy Therns]

Doesn't anyone remember Jeane Kirkpatrick anymore?

Maybe it's just that Hippostania is a catchier name for the theorem.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Don't threadjack.

If only you would respect this idea in other people's threads.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Doesn't anyone remember Jeane Kirkpatrick anymore?

Maybe it's just that Hippostania is a catchier name for the theorem.

I like Nevanmaa.

Sounds like nevando má. Snowing Evil.

[Ganos Lao]

You say that you are pro-freedom. I am merely highlighting how you are not. It can be said that no lover of freedom would ever endorse the Nazi regime winning as being "better off" for anyone.

You condemn Kekkoken and Mossadagh for infringing on property rights and being tyrants. Yet you say nothing when the Axis Powers you said should've won World War II did the exact same things you accuse the aforementioned leaders of doing. I think that's rather hypocritical, and it deserves attention.

How is it threadjacking? Really, how is it?

If I had said the Confederate States winning the Civil War would've been better off for the United States, would I be pressed to give evidence? You damn well bet I would be. It would be seen as very poor form to make the claim and then not even bother to address it. Would I be blasted if I said something along the lines (after endorsing a regime of slavers) of "hey, Saddam Hussein, we were right to depose him because he oppresses his people"? Of course I would be.

When you post stupid shit like "Axis good, Soviets bad," don't be surprised that people are going to call you out on it.

This thread isn't about my statements and opinions, it's about presidency of Urho Kekkonen. Right now you are attacking me as a person, not my arguments. If you want to argue about me, I suggest that you start a new thread and stop threadjacking.

You are saying that Urho Kekkonen was a tyrant.

I am merely saying that it is hypocritical to do so because of your support of an Axis victory in World War II.

You can't have it both ways.

It's "attacking you as a person" when I criticize your beliefs, but when you go around here calling your critics leftists and other such terms with derogatory meanings in mind (for example, IIRC, you once called NSG a liberal cesspit, something to that effect) you're attacking their arguments, but not them as people?

You can't have it both ways.

It's not threadjacking.

It's raising valid concerns.