6e9b8555   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article   
   ,   
    holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:   
      
   > No other country within the Soviet sphere of influence fared as well as   
   > Finland after WW II. When trying to conclude what was "reasonable" one has   
   > to think holistically in addition to considering the alternatives that   
   > were available. When trying to determine whether Finlandization meant   
   > "submission" one has to remember that the relationship between the two   
   > countries was asymmetrical in many dimensions, and that both parties   
   > figured out ways to exploit these asymmetries to their mutual advantage.   
   >   
      
   An interesting account, and for all I know a correct one. But it still   
   leaves unexplained the particular feature I mentioned in my post.   
   Wouldn't the arrangement have still been in the interest of both parties   
   if the barter trade had been on terms no worse for the USSR than what   
   they could have gotten elsewhere? Indeed, wouldn't it have been still in   
   the interest of Finland on terms even worse than that, given the   
   alternative?   
      
   Or are you assuming that, once the system was going, Finland had a   
   viable threat of dropping the relationship, joining NATO, and facing no   
   serious risk of a Soviet attack--and the favorable terms were necessary   
   to make that option not worth considering?   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)