As a gaming topic, the Finnish Civil War is relatively unknown. Gamers might therefore appreciate thematic guidance as to what they are thematically doing when interacting on the game board. A previous InsideGMT article already provided a basic account of the general faction characteristics and aims. In the next two InsideGMT articles on All Bridges Burning, I want to go in some detail highlighting some of the historical particularities pertaining to the Finnish Civil War and how these are handled in the game.
Power Struggle within the Finnish Working Class
In the course of 1917, the internal turmoil in Russia intensified. This posed the Finnish working class the question whether it wished to take the road of armed revolt or were parliamentary means to be preferred. The working class movement effectively split in two, the hardliners and the “moderates”. Ultimately the hardliners won the movement-internal struggle and in late January 1918, the Red Revolt was launched (see Red Revolt!).
In Finland, the news of the Russian Tsar’s abdication in March 1917 was received with rejoicing. In this image, the people gather on the streets of Wiipuri to celebrate the occasion. After decades of struggles for autonomy from Russian rule, Tsarism had very few sympathizers in Finland. (Image: Finnish Board of Antiquities, nba.fi)
In All Bridges Burning, the Moderates faction is conceived as consisting in part of the “moderate” voices in the working class movement. This allows the recreation of the aforementioned power struggle within the working class in the game environment. The chief Moderates weapon here is their ability to deny the Reds much needed control and thereby the opportunity to agitate for more opposition later during the Propaganda Rounds. On top of that, the Moderates reap a reward from this interference. During the Propaganda Rounds, uncontrolled spaces with Moderates presence (and some level of population) afford the Moderates a range of agitation options.
The Moderates also have a special activity that allows them to replace inactive Red cells with Moderates thereby eroding the Reds presence on the map. Playtesting has seen many intense “battles” ―as well as a good deal of hilarious, tongue-in-cheek table talk― as the Reds and the Moderate players lock horns in particular in the early game. (To me one wonderful aspect of historically and thematically grounded gaming is that the players typically slip into the roles of their respective historical counterparts and entertaining table talk usually follows.)
As the Moderates in the game, you’ve thus got the possibility of fighting the historical internal power struggle with the hardliner Reds ―but beware: like your historical counterparts, you will be painfully aware that a weakened, internally fractious working class might not be able to withstand the bourgeoisie onslaught coming later in the game. The locking of the horns within the working class movement is not hardwired in the design. An alternative early game course of action for the Moderates is to focus, for instance, in advancing the political process in the Political Display.
Town of Tampere
A watershed moment in the Finnish Civil War was the battle over the control of the central Finnish town of Tampere. The battle was fought over a three week period in March and April, 1918. The Senate forces approached the town from multiple directions and eventually defeated the Red defenders. The simultaneous landing of the German force in the Reds rear guard and their advance to Helsinki effectively ended the Red Revolt.
Tampere occupies a central location on the game map with multiple rail lines going via the town. In the South, the German forces have landed in the Reds read guard in the province of Uusimaa.
On the game map, as well as historically, Tampere occupies a central juncture in Finland’s railway network. The Senate army arriving from the North and the East must decide what to do with Tampere and the surrounding province of Häme which often tend to be hotbeds of Reds activity. One option is conquest, another is to take the Eastern or the Western detour to Helsinki. (Historically, the Senate force took on Tampere head-on but also diverted some forces towards the East where a weaker Senate force had been holding out against the Reds for a while.)
A group of victorious Senate army fighters posing in Tampere in April 1918. (Image: Finnish Board of Antiquities, nba.fi)
One of the interesting historical what-if’s pertaining to the Finnish Civil War is, what if the Senate forces had lost the battle of Tampere? Occasionally in All Briges Burning, the Reds do indeed get a chance to challenge the Senate army rolling towards Tampere. In a recent playtest game we saw that a well-timed Reds offensive (in this case, aided by some tactical ineptitude by yours truly at the Senate helm) can bring the Senate advance to a screeching halt. On that occasion, the Reds’ counter-attack destroyed the main Senate army.
This was a highly interesting playtest moment because we got to see whether the game system allows the Senate to recover from a disastrous defeat of what arguably is their strongest asset in the game: namely, a strong, capability-enhanced army. Even though the Senate did not go on to win that game, the game system did seem to pass the stress test. The Senate forces shifted from capability-enhanced warfare to Rallying and Marching making use of the sheer numbers of cells in establishing Senate control. I did make my way to Helsinki eventually, but ultimately failed to solidify Senate control there. With a different draw of cards at the game end, the Senate might have ended with control of Helsinki at the game end.
Articles in this Series: Part 1 Part 2
Author: V.P.J. Arponen
Clarification: “Senate Army” = “White Army”. My grandfather joined the White Army.
”like your historical counterparts, you will be painfully aware that a weakened, internally fractious working class might not be able to withstand the bourgeoisie onslaught coming later in the game.”
Had the red revolt not occurred, there had been no reason for civil war as Finland had already established democratic system, and elections had been held several times already with both socialist and bourgoise parties in power. Finnish goverment might still have disarmed Russian military in beginning of february 1918 but without red revolt that would have been quick effort and liberation war would have been either very short of almost completely peaceful.
Hannu: In the game context I prefer to speak of the Senate army since the faction is called the Senate. Their pieces are white. Also, although my feel for the language may be wrong about this, in the English language “whites” is also laundry-related vocabulary so I prefer to avoid it if I can.
Matias: Perhaps you know this, but an often overlooked aspect of the political situation in Finland at the time was that even though the right to vote in the nation-wide parliamentary election was extensive, the local county level election system was much less modern. That is, until the first county level elections held in late 1918 and 1919 (~six to ten months after the civil war), the right to vote depended on how much you had paid taxes that year, which tended to exclude the working class members such as the rural tenant farmers and the urban working poor.
True, the revision to the county level election law had been introduced already in November 1917 (~2 months before the civil war), yet seemingly it came too late to calm down the sentiments. Also, the electoral law reform was a concession given to the working class to end the general strike of November 1917. Therefore, for the working class the reform extracted from the bourgeoisie via the general strike probably seemed like a forced concession rather than a genuine change in political orientation and thus, distrust persisted.
So when you say Finland already had an established democratic system in 1917, the argument can be made that that’s not the full story.
In any case, thanks for taking time to read the article and commenting!
As a native englishman, I can assure that that there would be no one, given the context, who would think of the laundry term ‘whites’ in a discussion about war or politics.
Thanks for the reply.
English is not my native language either but for me “onslaught” refers to bloodshed i.e. war. In that sense, historically speaking had the moderates won SDP internal struggle, there would of course be (normal political) distrust, but most likely war against disarming Russians would have been very short or completely avoided (peaceful disarming).
Therefore for me, it sounds very odd to say that fractious working class would be a problem against bourgoise. If anything, red revolt gave only misfortune for working class, whether lost or won (even worse).
Despite the internal political issues, one could argue that key driving force for red revolt was really Bolshevik revolution it’s example, their heavy political pressure to socialist leaders and strong military support. Similar red revolts were occurring in most countries neighbouring Russia in 1920s, Latest discussions argue also, that this was an example of information war from Russia against smaller neighbour, happening just 100 years before recent events in Ukraine!
Gamewise it is understandable that there are more historical what ifs and different outcomes than what would actually most likely realise. I do realise I go way too far by analysing just one sentence in long blog, sorry about this.
Thanks for giving time answering and it is always facinating to hear designer insights!
Agreed, fascinating discussion–like a fishbowl to peer into for those like me who know little about this history!
Matias: Whether the civil war was avoidable can be debated. I believe the consensus among historians is that the war was avoidable, but the country got on the railroad to perdition pretty early, somewhere in the second half of 1917 already as both sides began training and stockpiling arms. When the build up got that arms race quality to it, then the war was inevitable. In such a view I think it makes sense to say that if the Moderates slow down the Reds’ stockpiling significantly while the Senate gets to go on with theirs, then the working class may be in collective trouble.
Historically speaking, the scenario you mention that the “moderates” stopped the working class from revolting in the first place —and that all that followed then was a short period of disarming the Russians— may not be plausible. Alongside the cycle of the arms race, the political struggle for reforms was bitter all throughout 1917 and political concessions from the bourgeoisie / nobility seemed to be extractable only through desperate means like strikes. I’m not sure that there was anything like a concensus in Finland at the time that parlamentarism and justice for all was the only plausible recipe for the future. I might get in trouble for saying this but the statement that had the Reds not revolted, the country would have just peacefully expelled the Russians and got on with building the foundations of modern parliamentary democratic, politically centrist Finland, seems a little like a neat story the eventual victors of the war tell of themselves. After all, in the aftermath of the war, very strong, non-parliamentary, non-reformist attitudes were very visible and active in the country. An armed right-wing coup in Finland was a distinct possibility deep into the 1930s.
In any case, for entertainment purposes, ABB is structured such that the war will happen almost no matter what —I say “almost” because theoretically the Moderates are in the position to win early and pre-empt the war.
Volko: Thanks for reading! I see it now more clearly that there’s a need for more of this type of articles on ABB.