Miks demokraatia Soomet ei päästnud? Ühendkuningriigi-Soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [Why did democracy not save Finland? The war between the United Kingdom and Finland, and the democratic peace proposition]

In 1941 on Finland’s Independence Day, the 6th of December, the United Kingdom declared war on Finland. The question whether it was a war at all between those two countries cannot be raised (at least in the legal sense), because if there was a need to conclude Peace Treaty in 1947 then there must ha...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal
Main Author: Raudsepp, Ago
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: University of Tartu Press 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2015.1-2.03
https://doi.org/10.12697/AA.2015.1-2.03
id fttartuunivojs:oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/12146
record_format openpolar
spelling fttartuunivojs:oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/12146 2024-06-23T07:55:31+00:00 Miks demokraatia Soomet ei päästnud? Ühendkuningriigi-Soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [Why did democracy not save Finland? The war between the United Kingdom and Finland, and the democratic peace proposition] Raudsepp, Ago 2015-06-30 application/pdf https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2015.1-2.03 https://doi.org/10.12697/AA.2015.1-2.03 eng eng University of Tartu Press https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2015.1-2.03/7257 https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2015.1-2.03 doi:10.12697/AA.2015.1-2.03 Ajalooline Ajakiri; Nr. 1/2 (2015): Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal; No. 1/2 (2015): Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal; Nr 1/2 (2015): Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal 2228-3897 1406-3859 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion 2015 fttartuunivojs https://doi.org/10.12697/AA.2015.1-2.03 2024-06-04T03:10:16Z In 1941 on Finland’s Independence Day, the 6th of December, the United Kingdom declared war on Finland. The question whether it was a war at all between those two countries cannot be raised (at least in the legal sense), because if there was a need to conclude Peace Treaty in 1947 then there must have been a war. There was a war in the military sense, but in a peculiar way it did not follow but rather preceded the declaration of war. In July 1941, British bombers attacked Petsamo in Northern Finland, and in September-October 1941 British fighters stationed in Murmansk fought air battles and attacked land targets in northern Finland. We can call these episodes a war between the United Kingdom and Finland – a rare occurrence of war between two democracies and a well-known exception in the democratic peace proposition. The power to avoid wars is usually attributed to three specific characteristics of democracy that prevent leaders of a state from deciding in favour of war, particularly during conflicts with other democracies: (1) public opinion, (2) democratic institutions, (3) democratic culture. There are many examples of when public opinion has not been very peaceful, and even towards other democracies – like in 1898 during the Fashoda Crisis. Institutions, though important, are only tools that cannot have an influence on their own – at least not the selective influence that works on other democracies. (Selective influence includes politicians who make institutions work in one direction or another.) If we want to find out what gives democracy the power to avoid wars, we must first and foremost focus on democratic culture, which is something described by Bruce Russett as an attitude: “it is not somehow right to fight another democracy”. We can call it the democracy argument. On the other hand, the main goal of every state is to survive, and especially during crisis the leaders of the state must take into account considerations that help their country to stay alive – or as Kenneth Waltz has put it: “the states ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Northern Finland University of Tartu: ojs.utlib.ee Murmansk Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal 0 1/2
institution Open Polar
collection University of Tartu: ojs.utlib.ee
op_collection_id fttartuunivojs
language English
description In 1941 on Finland’s Independence Day, the 6th of December, the United Kingdom declared war on Finland. The question whether it was a war at all between those two countries cannot be raised (at least in the legal sense), because if there was a need to conclude Peace Treaty in 1947 then there must have been a war. There was a war in the military sense, but in a peculiar way it did not follow but rather preceded the declaration of war. In July 1941, British bombers attacked Petsamo in Northern Finland, and in September-October 1941 British fighters stationed in Murmansk fought air battles and attacked land targets in northern Finland. We can call these episodes a war between the United Kingdom and Finland – a rare occurrence of war between two democracies and a well-known exception in the democratic peace proposition. The power to avoid wars is usually attributed to three specific characteristics of democracy that prevent leaders of a state from deciding in favour of war, particularly during conflicts with other democracies: (1) public opinion, (2) democratic institutions, (3) democratic culture. There are many examples of when public opinion has not been very peaceful, and even towards other democracies – like in 1898 during the Fashoda Crisis. Institutions, though important, are only tools that cannot have an influence on their own – at least not the selective influence that works on other democracies. (Selective influence includes politicians who make institutions work in one direction or another.) If we want to find out what gives democracy the power to avoid wars, we must first and foremost focus on democratic culture, which is something described by Bruce Russett as an attitude: “it is not somehow right to fight another democracy”. We can call it the democracy argument. On the other hand, the main goal of every state is to survive, and especially during crisis the leaders of the state must take into account considerations that help their country to stay alive – or as Kenneth Waltz has put it: “the states ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Raudsepp, Ago
spellingShingle Raudsepp, Ago
Miks demokraatia Soomet ei päästnud? Ühendkuningriigi-Soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [Why did democracy not save Finland? The war between the United Kingdom and Finland, and the democratic peace proposition]
author_facet Raudsepp, Ago
author_sort Raudsepp, Ago
title Miks demokraatia Soomet ei päästnud? Ühendkuningriigi-Soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [Why did democracy not save Finland? The war between the United Kingdom and Finland, and the democratic peace proposition]
title_short Miks demokraatia Soomet ei päästnud? Ühendkuningriigi-Soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [Why did democracy not save Finland? The war between the United Kingdom and Finland, and the democratic peace proposition]
title_full Miks demokraatia Soomet ei päästnud? Ühendkuningriigi-Soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [Why did democracy not save Finland? The war between the United Kingdom and Finland, and the democratic peace proposition]
title_fullStr Miks demokraatia Soomet ei päästnud? Ühendkuningriigi-Soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [Why did democracy not save Finland? The war between the United Kingdom and Finland, and the democratic peace proposition]
title_full_unstemmed Miks demokraatia Soomet ei päästnud? Ühendkuningriigi-Soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [Why did democracy not save Finland? The war between the United Kingdom and Finland, and the democratic peace proposition]
title_sort miks demokraatia soomet ei päästnud? ühendkuningriigi-soome sõda ja demokraatliku rahu teooria [why did democracy not save finland? the war between the united kingdom and finland, and the democratic peace proposition]
publisher University of Tartu Press
publishDate 2015
url https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2015.1-2.03
https://doi.org/10.12697/AA.2015.1-2.03
geographic Murmansk
geographic_facet Murmansk
genre Northern Finland
genre_facet Northern Finland
op_source Ajalooline Ajakiri; Nr. 1/2 (2015): Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal
Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal; No. 1/2 (2015): Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal
Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal; Nr 1/2 (2015): Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal
2228-3897
1406-3859
op_relation https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2015.1-2.03/7257
https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2015.1-2.03
doi:10.12697/AA.2015.1-2.03
op_doi https://doi.org/10.12697/AA.2015.1-2.03
container_title Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal
container_volume 0
container_issue 1/2
_version_ 1802648140193464320