Why is Finland having authoritarian regime? This is totally ahistorical, Finland was a democratic nation during this period and has always been. Change it!
Finland Authoritarian Regime !?!?!?!?!?
- Thread starter HenricusRex
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Does Finland have elections in game? Yes. Does it matter what you call it in-game in flavor? Not really.
I believe it has the authoritarian regime in order to not join the Allies, as a democratic regime would in-game.
I believe it has the authoritarian regime in order to not join the Allies, as a democratic regime would in-game.
Well the president Svinhufvud was a kinda big authority as he managed to prevent the rise of the fascists or how we like to call the far right movements like Lapuan liike. Also isn't Finland unaligned? Democratic in this game means more like an allied supporter.
Ideologies primarily exist to help make WW2 happen in a realistic way while still enabling players to do what they want, not to accurately represent the political situation of a country. The later would be essentially impossible, requiring almost as many types of political parties as there are countries.
They could just make Finland democratic and with a national spirit which makes them less likely to join a faction.
Well the main problem is that this is giving a false picture of the true historical situation. It's like false facts, paradox interactive can plug in which ever script they want to Finland. Btw historically Finland was not far away from getting allied support from the Soviet Union.
Also this is a controversial topic as several Russian "historians" today are trying to be apologetic towards SU and justify Soviet actions through arguing that Finland was just as bad as the Axis. The truth is that Finland was a liberal democratic country finding itself in deep shit.
Also this is a controversial topic as several Russian "historians" today are trying to be apologetic towards SU and justify Soviet actions through arguing that Finland was just as bad as the Axis. The truth is that Finland was a liberal democratic country finding itself in deep shit.
Finland used to be a democracy, but was changed to non-aligned since they constantly joined the Allies. The "Authoritarian regime" is that a descriptor of the non-aligned ideology (neutrality_desc in localisation). You can find the same text with every non-aligned country. It's just a piece of text and has zero influence on gameplay.
Well I'm not annoyed with the gameplay. I just feel that it is problematic when a game that claims to be historical depicts history in contrafactual way. Especially in our times of "fake-news" and "alternative facts", and also it is an especially controversial topic as mainstream history depiction concerning the Soviet-Finnish is being constantly challenged by Russia. Not so long ago Russian media launched an "anti-Mannerheim" campaign.
That the actual Nazi co-belligerent administration is portrayed as democratic compared to the neutral/Sweden/Allied leaning pre-war and Winter War administration is also pretty silly.
The United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The Kuomingtang were National Socialists, extremely close to what the Nazi party were, but in game one's fascist and one's authoritarian. The Hungarian government was strongly anti-fascist, and is fascist in game. Austria's ruling party, on the other hand, were pretty much as textbook fascist as you get, but are non-aligned, with Poland having the same situation but to a lesser degree. Greece, ruled by a hard line self-avowed fascist strongman is just a democracy without elections in the game - and certainly not the only one.
It's odd be complaining about one of the instances in particular, rather than the setup as a whole, no?
It's odd be complaining about one of the instances in particular, rather than the setup as a whole, no?
That's a very weird definition for co-belligerent (kanssasotija på finska). Were or were they not at war against the same enemy at the same time without being legally allied?
(Edit) Though I probably did not write my previous reply very well. I did not mean that Ryti's administration should be facists or neutral in domestic sense (though IIRC, IKL did participate in government). It's just that the concept of Western aligning neutral Finland and Germany aligning democratic Finland is silly.
Last edited:
Because HOI operates on the false idea that WW2 was fought between different ideologies, rather than Soviet Union + Britain + France and its satellites vs. Everyone else.
If they made Finland a Democracy, it would just join Britain right away and draw USSR into war against Britain.
To be fair, both sides were interested. Guarantee of Finland by Allies is not that implausible compared to lot of stuff that goes around here.
It's just there is no AI or mechanism for plausible contingency for such an action. "Britain say's it will back Finland against you, now what do you do Stalin"? That's where the game breaks down.
After a memorial plate was put up in St. Petersburg. Same city, that suffered from being encircled, in large part, by Finnish troops. How would Dresden react to a memorial dedicated to pilots who bombed it in 1945?
If you insist on talking about such topics - do it somewhere else, because they are not welcome here. People get too heated (myself included).
It was put there by Russians, for emphasis. I'd think the OP also misspoke slightly and meant to say "Kremlin launched a media campaign". Important difference here.
No comment.
Last edited:
Fair enough. Well said and kudos for bringing the different views.
For what it's worth I consider Continuation War to be a mistake if examined in isolation (even if Soviets gave the first shot by bombing Finland, itself guaranteed due to precence of a whole bunch of armed Germans in Finland). However it cannot really be considered in isolation as Finland's situation was tenuous after Winter War due to preceived possibility of further agression from Soviets. It's impossible to prove whether Finland would have been fine without aligning to Germany.
For what it's worth I consider Continuation War to be a mistake if examined in isolation (even if Soviets gave the first shot by bombing Finland, itself guaranteed due to precence of a whole bunch of armed Germans in Finland). However it cannot really be considered in isolation as Finland's situation was tenuous after Winter War due to preceived possibility of further agression from Soviets. It's impossible to prove whether Finland would have been fine without aligning to Germany.
After Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine used Finnish territory as base of operations against USSR - Red Air force performed air strikes. After Finnish submarines mined Baltic coast off Estonian SSR, after Finnish soldiers entered demilitarized Aland islands.
Turkey was fine - it was poised to strike, but didn't.
Finland wanted revenge for the losses in Winter war, as well as dreams of Greater Finland. It's ambitions failed.
The agreement on Åland islands gives Finland the right to occupy the islands in certain cases. No idea what you are talking about, just wanted to correct this.
- Status