4 ms·

At least four factors differentiate the two: 1. Finland had only one scary and ravenous empire near its border. Poland had two: Russia and Germany/Prussia, or

At least four factors differentiate the two: 1. Finland had only one scary and ravenous empire near its border. Poland had two: Russia and Germany/Prussia, or even three, if you count the Austro-Hungarians. 2. Finland is much easier to defend. 3. Finland was a free, market-based country since WWII, whereas Poland had to implement the insane communist policies. So, essentially Finland had a 45-year head start over Poland in building free society and economy. 4. Finland is much less populous. It's much easier to bring wealth via industrialization to a country of 5 millions than to country of 38 millions.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
Finland spent many years as part of Russian Empire, but only one year under communist rule. Poland spent 50 years under the communists. Two generations of brain washing and negative selection.
- fsloth 5y ago
  "Finland spent many years as part of Russian Empire" Yes - and no. Legally Finland was a Grand Duchy, under the direct ownership of the Czar (who was the duke of Finland) - hence Finland was not actually part of the Russian state, even though it had the same head of state, but had parallel autonomous state functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland At the end of 19th century Russian state started to abhor this autonomy, but actual dissolution of the independent state did not have time to take place before the Russian revolution. As czar died with no obvious inheritors, Finland guessed it was now independent and the Soviet state acknowledged it as such. So Finland became independent from a luck of legalese basically, and the fact that Soviet state had other problems to deal with than a small parcel of land. The blood price for independence was paid later in civil war and in 2nd world war.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Wasn't Finland heavily influenced by USSR post-WWII? Hence the term "Finlandisation".

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago

Finland spent many years as part of Russian Empire, but only one year under communist rule. Poland spent 50 years under the communists. Two generations of brain washing and negative selection.

fsloth 5y ago
"Finland spent many years as part of Russian Empire" Yes - and no. Legally Finland was a Grand Duchy, under the direct ownership of the Czar (who was the duke of Finland) - hence Finland was not actually part of the Russian state, even though it had the same head of state, but had parallel autonomous state functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland At the end of 19th century Russian state started to abhor this autonomy, but actual dissolution of the independent state did not have time to take place before the Russian revolution. As czar died with no obvious inheritors, Finland guessed it was now independent and the Soviet state acknowledged it as such. So Finland became independent from a luck of legalese basically, and the fact that Soviet state had other problems to deal with than a small parcel of land. The blood price for independence was paid later in civil war and in 2nd world war.
rich_sasha 5y ago
Wasn't Finland heavily influenced by USSR post-WWII? Hence the term "Finlandisation".