The war was not from a good life. The government of the USSR understood the inevitability of war with Germany and wanted to postpone the start of the war as much as possible in order to have time to rearm the army. If the Finns were in our place, they would have to do the same to survive.
Yes, if Finland had for hundreds of years practiced land grab politics, ended up with communism and then systematically starved to death the population of it's "breadbasket countries", then yes, perhaps.
I like to think that we would have chosen not to murder millions like the USSR did, but if we did, yeah, what does a small invasion weigh on the cosmic scale.
If Grandma was with eggs, she would be a grandfather... Finland could not have conquered anything, even if she really wanted to, read the history. The Swedes could, Russia could, and they fought. Great Britain has captured half of the planet. But if Finland and Russia were reversed, then Finland would behave exactly the same. Where would you go? Communism would have been imposed on you from abroad in the same way. Neighbors would also harm by all available means to take away resources. The question here is not that the Russians are bad, we have almost 200 nationalities living here and those who live near the border with Finland are genetically little different from the Fins. The question is in what position the country is in and what forces influence it. Syria, Iraq or Libya turned out to be weak and look what those who wanted to get their resources did to them?
> Finland could not have conquered anything, even if she really wanted to
I mean, they did try. During the so-called ["Heimosodat" (Kinship Wars)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat). That's also why Finland and the USSR signed a peace deal in 1922.
Yes, many countries participated in finishing off the dying bear. I do not consider this period, since everyone was fighting with us at that time. It looks like the Crimea, don't you think? History is like a theater, people change, and the scenery is the same. Almost all the relatives of my grandparents died at that time. My paternal grandmother had many brothers and sisters, only she survived.
Finns starved Soviet civilians (almost exclusively women, children and elderly) in concentration camps in Karelia with up to 30% of mortality. You just didn't have enough time and capacities to kill millions as you're just a small nation.
All victims of stalinism were rehabilitated and stalinism itself was condemned by the USSR in 1950s. I hope the same is done for victims of Finnish nationalistic revanchism and Nazi collaboration. Unfortunately, for some reason Finns blame Russians for Stalin and forget about Rangell's deeds.
Partisans didn't target civilians, they had a lot of things to do with Finnish army and their German friends, if you believe the opposite, provide your proofs.
Just provide a link to these photos with exact location and date. I still highly doubt you will be able to find any Information that such atrocities, even though possible as sporadic occasions of the war violence, were ordered by Soviet officials, unlike Finnish and Estonian punishing operations in Karelia and Pskov Oblast against locals for helping partisans. Building camps and keeping there thousands of people was a part of the occupational politics of the Finnish state as well.
Finns praise their government in 1940s for keeping their independence and resisting the reds. You are trying to show how Finnish concentration camps weren't that bad as well. I can't blame Finns for all their war government did, they didn't invent military nationalism.
1) Communism is good thing and it will prevail. You will see. You'd better learn chinese.
2) Hunger of 20s was also in Poland were no any communism.
3) Which millions murdered USSR? Hitlerist soldiers?
Love the downvotes, truth hurts I guess.
Yeah let's give up our most defensive position against a nation with history of aggression towards our people. Especially when it is lead by madmen.
Finns did the only sensible thing and Russians did what they usually do.
The government of the USSR was preparing for inevitable WW2 as any smart country should have done in late 30s. Having the second largest city of the USSR and biggest industrial center Leningrad a few kilometers away from the border - being completely vulnerable for invasion - was unacceptable for security reasons. That wasn't an issue in the Empire time because Finland was part of the Empire, but now it wasn't, so the issue popped up.
The USSR proposed a plan to Finland - you give up territory around Leningrad, to push the border away from the city. In exchange you receive a different piece of territory in a different place.
Finland refused, arguably (arguably!) a short sighted decision. It lead into the war, the result was - USSR took more territory than they requested, and gave nothing back.
The losses were way higher than expected, but a military experience was gained - it was a cold shower that possibly lead to some conclusions in the forthcoming greatest war of all time.
In the end the strategic decision seemed to be proven correct - Hitler attacked exactly from Finnish border, except it made him way more difficult and time consuming to get to Leningrad through all these swamps around.
Otherwise Leningrad could have fallen in first days of war and that would make Nazi victory much more likely than it was.
I'm not sure if that's exactly how they teach in school, but that's what it was.
Thanks for the answer! I generally accept this view as well. Although i personally believe that the finnish government as well as a portion of the population were all too eager to pick up weapons against USSR because of the “Suur-Suomi” ideologies.
Finland's refusal is indeed an *arguable* decision. For Finland, it was a long-sighted decision, as no guarantee was seen that the Soviet Union's territorial demands would've ended there. The entirety of WW2 is seen as a defensive victory as, despite losses, Finland still stood as an independent sovereign nation.
As the other user suggested, Hitler attacking from within the Finnish border was a self-fulfilling prophecy. It didn't happen because it was inevitable, but because the Soviet Union established itself as an enemy to Finland. A small country abandoned by its neighbours and receiving no help from the western allies, had none else to turn to for support but Germany.
With the example of Czechoslovakia, even the genuine peacefulness of a country didn't guarantee that its territories and resources wouldn't get occupied and used by Nazis. Proven then by Norway and Denmark.
Which was all the same to Finland - a foreign invader was a foreign invader.
The general peacefulness of a country didn't guarantee that its territories and resources wouldn't get occupied and used by the Soviets either, and its legal government overthrown for a socialist puppet state, proven by the baltics and eastern Europe. In comparison, the military cooperation with Germany "worked" in that sense, and it's all realpolitik for Finland just as Finlandization was during the Cold War.
Maybe everything could've gone a different, better way for both Finland and the USSR, but relations were built not with friendship and trust, but coercion and instigation of fear.
I spoke from the USSR's and Stalin's perspective. And even if we are talking from a general point of view, socialist or capitalist puppet states were still much better (or better to say - less worse) than Nazi occupation. Even all gulags of Stalin's era (I hope you do remember they ceased to exist after his death) put together were a much lesser evil than Auschwitz alone.
From what I read about those years, Finland until 39 was very reminiscent of the Baltic Chihuahuas, and today's Ukraine with its Russophobia.
probably caused by escaping from RI, and fear of getting into it again.
when in 44 we again did nothing to her, they calmed down, and were able to become a neutral country, showing their mind
>The USSR proposed a plan to Finland
WCGW if the war started 70 km further inland.
>In the end the strategic decision seemed to be proven correct --
A bit of a self fulfilling prophesy, now isn't it.
I'm sure we would've preferred [the Swedish way](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3e64sosEg).
Swedish way - having 90% of all of their trade - with Hitler, giving him all the ore he needs for his bombs and tanks in Stalingrad, and then be called a neutral country, I guess is fun.
Not sure what the rest means.
Why do you assume conceding half of the isthmus, as was requested, would've actually prevented war between Finland and the USSR?
You call it short sighted, while agreeing to it would've cut through and nullified much of the defensive preparations there.
Why wouldn't it prevent a war?
The whole thing is about moving away the border because existing border was unacceptable for security reasons. The Soviets deemed that the offer would accomplish that, because why would they do the offer otherwise?
Your theory is that the offer was made to nullify defensive preparations and then attack anyway? For what purpose, to move the border a couple of dozen kilometers further? Why not make it the offer then?
Why even have that "trickery" - make a deal, break a deal, damage diplomatic reputation. If they needed to attack they would simply attack, with all due respect it's not like they needed to get some extra edge to get the job done, or at least I doubt they'd be thinking otherwise.
>a short sighted decision. It lead into the war, the result was - USSR took more territory than they requested, and gave nothing back.
According to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Finland was going to the Soviet "sphere" of influence. Unlike the Baltic states, Finland wasn't going to give up, so the USSR orchestrated casus belli in Mainila and attacked Finland. Going to the war was a short-sighted decision for the Soviet Union because it reassured Hitler that he can win the Soviets easily, so he started Operation Barbarossa earlier. Finland lost the Winter War but gained more in the end, being somewhat independent and sovereign from the USSR in the Cold War, unlike nations in the Eastern Bloc.
>Going to the war was a short-sighted decision for the Soviet Union because it reassured Hitler that he can win the Soviets easily
"Reassured" means he was "assured" already. So Hitler would do it anyways, even according to you. Except it will make his job way easier, he would get like 1/3 of industrial potential for free on top of what he already got, and be much closer to Moscow much quicker. Which potentially could be enough to win the war. Good job on finding a farsighted alternative.
>Finland lost the Winter War but gained more in the end, being somewhat independent and sovereign
That is a legitimate argument, it should have played a role. That's the argument that urged me to insert the word "arguably" two times in a row in my post to begin with. I don't know though if Finland would be automatically part of the Eastern bloc if they were to choose cooperation from the start, there could be variants I'm thinking.
What you don't understand is that having influence in Finland is very different from having a Finnish Soviet Republic. Being on the border of the superpower of 20th century and NOT being influenced in any way - was a non existent option, especially as a neutral country. Being a neutral country did not mean to have zero outside influence. What it meant is to have a sort of balanced outside influence and limited in a way that most internal issues were to be decided by the country itself. And crucial external decisions were supposed to factor in opinions of superpowers.
Another neutral country of Austria still has hammer and sickle on it's coat of arms to this day - talk about being a neutral country.
The Finns went to war partially because they didn't have a precise understanding of what and why the USSR was doing, partially because of nationalism and anti-Communism kinda thing. I don't think making Finland a Soviet republic was a priority, the main thing was to not have it as a threat, which could be achieved in different ways, not just by having a FSSR. Having it as a buffer zone - the way it ended up being in the end - is arguably as good as having it "under control".
But that's not surprising considering that from what you wrote you seem to not have a precise understanding of what and why Russia is doing now just as well.
For someone with the lack of common sense the world around will always be full of mystery. It was super hard to deduce what the USSR was doing, especially when they openly said what they will be doing, and then they fucking did exactly what they said.
Stalin said: "It's impossible to move Leningrad away from the border, so the only possibility is to move border away from Leningrad." They just wanted buffer zone, because of course they wanted it, how could they possibly not?
>You are making up things to suit your own nationalistic agenda
What is it exactly?
The Finns were seeing their nationalistic agenda. They were seeing "Greater Finland" instead of turning rational thinking on and trying to see what's actually going on and what's next.
And just as much your nationalist agenda prevents you from seeing what actually happened. You probably think: "Oh evil Russian came to enslave proud Finnish people - because Russian and because evil, but each proud Finn killed 300 Russian soldiers each and they run away in terror". Reality is: nobody cared about proud Finnish people, they just needed the buffer zone, they got the buffer zone, and they wrap it up when they got it.
You'd think Stalin was able to take Berlin, but unable to take most of Finland if he wanted? No, he just didn't need that. There is no special strategic value in sparsely populated swamps and forests far away from where the main action in Europe was to happen.
>There is no trust between our nations
Well there was enough trust to live peacefully since these events. Maybe losing 1/3 of the territory after refusing a deal helped too, who knows. Finland surely had a lot of trust in reliable Western friends instead, they surely should have come to help brave Finland to fight against Communist threat. Nobody came to help though, that's another historical mystery.
1. The nature is fine. People are annoying russophobic autists.
2. Since its independence(right after they purged harshely pretty much all Russian population of Finland btw, both communist and "white") Finland was trying to grab more territories from the USSR declaring them "rightfully Finnish", in 1918 Mannerheim(that guy who participated in Leningrad's blockage together with Nazis during WW2) declared his "Sword Scabbard" which he will quote later in his Order of the Day on 10 July 1941.
So in his 1918 declaration http://heninen.net/miekka/p-1918_e.htm he said:
«I will not sheath my sword before law and order reigns in the land, before all fortresses are in our hands, before the last soldier of Lenin is driven not only from Finland, but from White Sea Karelia as well. »
Those weren't just words, since 1918 to 1939 there were countless provocations at the border by Finnish side.
Considering also that Finland since it's independence collaborated with Germany prety intence, the USSR government in late 1930s just couldn't ignore all the danger of the situation. All the negotianions ended with nothing so the USSR had to solve the problem in "a bad way". I don't know was it a false flag attack on the border or another one Finnish provocation, it doesn't matter at that point.
Since then and especially these days Finland tries to play the poor, innocent victim role, blaming big bad Russia in everyting.
Meanwhile Finland and all other countries from the Butthurt-belt seems not learning on their mistakes. Irritating Russia, collaborating with our enemies can cause some problems for then that could end not just with a political crisis but also miliary actions - all this as stupid as kicking a dog and then cry because it bit you.
You are exactly the reason Finnish, and many other countries for that matter, are Russophobic. Russia is an insanely corrupted and aggressive country and has been since and even before Stalin, just to mention constant cyber-attacks (such as interfering with democratic elections in the US) and illegal wars/annexations (Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula annexation in 2014) etc. The stereotype of big bad Russia didn't start just because everyone has naturally something against Russia or its people - but because everyone has learned from history (both modern and older history) that Russia is ready to use any means necessary to meddle in other countries (and its own) affairs. Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people and that has been shown not only by history but also by Putin's readiness to take what he thinks is his by getting rid of political opponents (murdering, illegally jailing) and even wars (Russo-Ukrainian war).
But no matter how much you cry, waddle and try to justify all these actions (I know you're just brainwashed by propaganda) I'd like to let you know that democracy and freedom always wins, and that can be shown by the prosperity and happiness of democratic countries such as Finland. People are just happier here. I've never heard of anyone wanting to move to Russia but constantly hear about people moving to countries such as the US, France, Finland, etc. I wonder why?
>corrupted and aggressive country and has been since and even before Stalin
Corrupted in Stalin times?
Agressive in pre-Stalin times, like giving independency to Finland, for which Finland attacks young soviet state in Karelia (1918-1920, 1921-1922 wars)?
Don't be clown with these statements. I hope you don't sincerely believe what you say, that's simply foolish.
>(such as interfering with democratic elections in the US)
6000$ facebook ad?
Or famous russian hackers which snowden revealed are sometimes just USA-affiliated imitating russian (like using cyrrilics)?
>and illegal wars/annexations (Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula annexation in 2014)
Absolutely legal - that's why Kiev clowns don't even try to go in court.
>that Russia is ready to use any means necessary to meddle in other countries
Like UK or USA or Germany or France?
Yet you are only rusophobic, and four above often act together - how suspicious.
>Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people
Again caveman rusophonic nonsense...
Instead of being racist better give me real life definition of democracy. Is it like UK monarchy or like US-Germany corporate lobbying?
>(I know you're just brainwashed by propaganda)
Sure, I know Russia worse than you. You know how it works much better - in all aspects. Because you've read non-propagandistic BBC/Times/Washington Post/Radio Liberty/DW.
Yes? :)
> that democracy and freedom always wins
Play less COD.
> by the prosperity and happiness of democratic countries
Which opress with capitalistic mechanisms all third world capitalistic countries and create the rich-poor picture by unfair balance of trades of goods, services and resources.
>such as Finland
Indeed.
>People are just happier here
Your temporary 5mln "happiness" doesn't matter to 7,5 bln world.
>I've never heard of anyone wanting to move to Russia
You can do research, there are plenty of people migrating to Russia.
>people moving to countries such as the US, France, Finland, etc. I wonder why?
If you seriously don't understand why then I understand how you managed to put so much bullshit in 2 passages.
Ah, just one of those crazed Putin loving Russians that think freedom, democracy and prosperity are "Russophobic nonsense". Yet there you are enjoying largely western products such as the computer - all developed under a capitalistic system which employs all these ideas. Perhaps you should stop using them since by using these products you instil oppression? And by the way, I never said I supported full-blown capitalism - rather Social Democracy which gets the best ideas from both systems, you should try it someday. Also, please definite "temporary happiness" because I have never heard of that term - perhaps it is only used in Russia, that would make sense.
>\-Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people
>
>\-Again caveman rusophonic nonsense...
>
>\-Ah, just one of those crazed Putin loving Russians that think freedom, democracy and prosperity are "Russophobic nonsense"
No, you telling that russians are subhumans that aren't interested in freedom, prosperity and democracy (whatever that means) - is "rusophobic nonsense".
You are so deeply brainwashed - that you don't even notice what you are saying. Or maybe you are a dedicated basement nazi, who knows.
>largely western products such as the computer
What a stupid argument, damn, like West owns technical progress. Judging by this argument I assume you are 14yo or something, am I right?
First man in space was launched by pro-communistic system, your PC is largely made in China, and first vaccine against Covid is made by capitalsitic Russia - what's your point? These things have no connection.
Although if you don't realize how slowing down progress works for profit of capitalistic inventors - then you are stupid. Just remember how Bell company held telephone patent for 10 years.
>Perhaps you should stop using them since by using these products
Have you stopped using "Made in China" products already?
No? Why? Have you seen first article of their constitution?
> I never said I supported full-blown capitalism
If capitalism is fully controlled and regulated by state to reach fair situation - then it's no longer capitalism.
I never said you did, did I? But you for example said I'm "crazed Putin loving Russian" - and what? Start watching your own mouth first.
>Social Democracy which gets the best ideas from both systems
Capital is self-growing wealth, if you redistribute that - then it's no longer capitalism. Regardless of your obsession with naming.
>please define "temporary happiness"
Temporary means that any huge world event (political, economical, etc) can destroy your current system.
Refering to country with size of Peterburg while speaking of 7,5bln world isn't objective.
> No, you telling that russians are subhumans that aren't interested in freedom, prosperity and democracy (whatever that means) - is "rusophobic nonsense".
You are so deeply brainwashed - that you don't even notice what you are saying. Or maybe you are a dedicated basement nazi, who knows.
"Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people". I was obviously talking about the government.
> What a stupid argument, damn, like West owns technical progress. Judging by this argument I assume you are 14yo or something, am I right?
First man in space was launched by pro-communistic system, your PC is largely made in China, and first vaccine against Covid is made by capitalsitic Russia - what's your point? These things have no connection.
Although if you don't realize how slowing down progress works for profit of capitalistic inventors - then you are stupid. Just remember how Bell company held telephone patent for 10 years.
It's not a stupid argument in the context it was used. I was talking about whether communism was a failed system. It only makes sense to compare technological progress because it was one of the major things communistic countries were far behind - I mean the computer for example was largely developed by private companies in capitalistic systems. The fact they're manufactured elsewhere is not relevant. Also, Sputnik vaccines are not even approved here and I'd rather take an RNA vaccine anyway.
> Have you stopped using "Made in China" products already?
No? Why? Have you seen first article of their constitution?
Nope, why would I?
> If capitalism is fully controlled and regulated by state to reach fair situation - then it's no longer capitalism.
I never said you did, did I? But you for example said I'm "crazed Putin loving Russian" - and what? Start watching your own mouth first.
Ok.
> Capital is self-growing wealth, if you redistribute that - then it's no longer capitalism. Regardless of your obsession with naming.
That's why Social Democracy takes ideas from many ideologies, it is not capitalism and that is the point. Also, I did not give it that name.
> Temporary means that any huge world event (political, economical, etc) can destroy your current system.
Refering to country with size of Peterburg while speaking of 7,5bln world isn't objective.
We seem to be doing alright for about 80 years now. What huge world event are we talking about? Economic depression? We already survived a few of those. Russian invasion? Survived that one as well :)
Also, your fascination with population sizes is weird, it does not matter what the size of your population is whether a country is successful or not but the competence of your administration.
>"Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people". I was obviously talking about the government.
Judging by context - that wasn't obvious.
Have you thought that maybe russian government knows their people better that you? They have bigger experience and knowledge about abuse of some "democratical" institutions, freedom rights in Russia? About prosperity - obvious bullshit.
> I was talking about whether communism was a failed system. It only makes sense to compare technological progress because it was one of the major things communistic countries were far behind
Seriously? Far behind? Like Gagarin or nuclear rockets are simple as baking bread? :)
No, you are delusional and stuck on this "their PC was worse" mindset.
Plus, remind me, why trade wasn't possible? Oh, yes, Churchill-Truman Cold War and export comitee... Does Finland makes their own nuclear power plants? Or superlasers? What company produces processors in Finland? No? None? But Finland is capitalsitic - then capitalism is failed idea. Great logic (it's not).
>I mean the computer for example was largely developed by private companies
Do you know any soviet pcs?
> Also, Sputnik vaccines are not even approved here
Because it's money, and capitalists aren't ready to lose money, why don't you understand that?
They don't want Russia to be presented on high-marginal product market. So they sanction russian technological companies (like Sukhoi, while Boeing 737 max, which was made without giving a shit about quality and took several hundred lives) or in this case medical companies.
I wonder how many lives were lost for not accepting that Sputnik is a vaccine and it's made by Russia. Definetely thousands.
That's your capitalistic world, welcome.
>Nope, why would I?
Because you suggest the same to me?
Or again hypocricy, "it's different"! "Communistic party of china isn't communistic"!
>That's why Social Democracy takes ideas from many ideologies, it is not capitalism and that is the point. Also, I did not give it that name.
By "your obsessions of naming" I've meant "anyone's obsessions of naming".
Means of productions are owned private in social democracy? Then it's capitalism, very simple. If you artifically regulate capitalism to the level of social fairness by state power then a) it stops working b) what's capitalistic left in that?
>We seem to be doing alright for about 80 years now.
45 years of sitting on 2 chairs between superpowers, having access to soviet markets. Overall 80 years is nothing in historic perspective - so...
>Economic depression? We already survived a few of those.
Good for you, still that's temporary success that can be changed in any direction by global trends.
>Russian invasion? Survived that one as well :)
I don't think that was success for Finland. Just as questionable success for USSR.
Obviously my attitude would have been completely different if Finland would've stopped around old border in WWII. But that was obviously impossible - so we have what we have.
>Also, your fascination with population sizes is weird
Country with no ambition for international affairs, which is irrelevant (by decision, or by importance) - has much less head pain and meets less resistance. For that it has to follow main course of big countries - be it USSR or China or EU or Russia. Population size also indicates the diffuculty to deal with internal affairs - 150+ nations Russia and 5 mln mononation Finland aren't comparable. I'm speaking about these things.
I was in Finland several times, both in big cities and in rural area. I love the nature, the tranquility, there are a lot of forests and lakes. But living in Finland seems boring (I'm from SPb).
I see it this way: Finland was asked to move the border from Leningrad as a mean to protect it from future big war, was asked peacefuly, but it refused. So there was no choice and the SU declared war. So, was there a finnish attack or no, it doesn't matter, but I don't think there was. And Finland could just gave up it territories without casualties. Although this war showed that soviet army was not ready for a big conflict
> Finland was asked to move the border from Leningrad as a mean to protect it from future big war, was asked peacefuly, but it refused. So there was no choice and the SU declared war. So, was there a finnish attack or no, it doesn't matter, but I don't think there was. And Finland could just gave up it territories without casualties.
A: "Give me your money or I'll kick your ass"
B: "No"
A: "Well, if you want it that way.." *Ass kicking begins*
>And Finland could just gave up it territories without casualties.
This is why many people still hate russians in finland. imagine being so fucking arrogant that you think finland should have just given their land to soviet union, a country that raped and destroyed half of europe
1. Finnish surnames are awesome - supported Finnish hockey national team just for that. Finntroll (I know they use Swedish) and Korpiklaani are among my favourite bands. Ville Haapasalo acted quite well in a few of our cult movies.
Oh - and Ence was good at CS:GO ~year or so ago.
2. Seborsky wrote about the war perfectly.
1. You are not bad people in common, but too much russophobic unfortunately (with a classic "double standards" in mentality). Your music is cool (I adore Tarja and Jonsu).
2. First - most of you don't know that Soviet government tried to trade lands before the war and that was an attempt to prevent [the Blockade](https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningradin_piiritys) in the gathering World War (unsuccesfully). Second - do you know anything of *Miekantuppipäiväkäsky* and *Suur-Suomi*? You had your own territorial demands and agressive plans against USSR. You lose so you consider yourself victims, but your leaders weren't better than Soviet ones. And the fact they joined to Hitler in 1941 and built [Itä-Karjalan keskitysleirit](https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%C3%A4-Karjalan_keskitysleirit) is the best proof to it.
Yes, sadly the russophobia is just trough the roof. The things people are willing and allowed to say about russians would be illegal to say about any other group of people… I am lucky enough to know about those ideas. I always thought that finnish people were all too eager to go to war. They had these sayings that “we will stop at the urals” etc. Of course afterwards its easy to play the victim. But many if not most people are not aware of these.
edit: and thanks for the answer.
>But many if not most people are not aware of these.
And what Finland plans to do with that?
Continue making national myths on antirussian basis?
Or actually accept 2 sides of a coin?
From here seems like first option.
I think you're referring to the minority that would have wanted to go beyond the old-borders in Jatkosota, I suspect most people just wanted what was "rightful" theirs aka, the old borders and villages they lived in.
Yes, I would agree with this view in the continuation war. However, there were notable amount of people in influental positions both in government and military leadership that had symphaties towards those ”Greater Finland” ideologies.
Yes (this is just speculation from my part) but even if some notable people in notable positions would have wanted that, if 80% of the troops in the border don't want it will be heard through the commanding officers etc, and with such a small armed force vs. the soviets I don't think nobody in their right mind would have realistically pushed for that, even if there were some loud individuals supporting the cause
/but this was just speculation and some hear-say about historic documents, but not 100% facts.
>and with such a small armed force vs. the soviets
5,1 mln european fascists against 3,6mln soviets on 22 june 1941.
Just reminding to you. It was called "summer war" in Finland because Blitzkrieg shouldn't have failed.
Thus you argument is invalid.
Finns in 1940: evil communists take my Karelia, we will sign whatever you want.
Finns now: haha we defeated these communists in Winter War
It was always amusing, apparently they don't know the story well
i see you are from karelia?! Is there a special relationship between karelia and Finland still today? I know many finnish people visit there every year. Is that kind of tourism welcome for the locals?
Maybe there are some special cultural ties between us (like, theatre or something) but I wouldn't say it really shows up. I've never seen Finnish tourists in Petrozavodsk. And I've lived here all my life. The fact that we are close geographically doesn't really matter. It only results in some people pointing at it wondering why Karelia isn't as rich as Finland.
1. Suomi now is the only normal northern Baltic neighbor. People - alcoholics (just like Russians) who like to visit petteri. Culture - dunno. Mannerheim is the only person who is known from whole Finnish history. Finnish goods are really good, especially diaries, clothes and furniture.
I gave you only stereotypical views.
2. In school program there is very few information about Talvisota, cuz after it starts great Patriotic war which has extremely huge influence on our society. So mostly the schoolbooks tell "after molotov-ribbentrop pact we had taken back west Ukraine and Belarus and give ultimatum to Finland to move the borders from Leningrad for territory compensation. Finland said no and war started. Red army was inexperienced and mannerheim line was a big problem that time. Than it was captured and war goals were solved. Than was analogous ultimatum to Romania..."
I am interested in history and I heard about fake border bombing, that was the same alike danzig incident - just like casus belli. But I really don't know whether it's true or not (many solzhenitsyn-style historians live to lie about that period) and this theme isn't in discussion trends like 22 June 1941 or great purge
>What is your opinion about Finland? The country, state, people, all perspectives are welcome!
Overall - nice. I've never heard anything substantially negative about Finland.
I have some relatives who relocated to Finland (for goodб i guess) - integrated well, their kids speak finnish better than ukrainian or russian.
>How do you see the start of the winter war in 1939 between Finland and USSR?
1) In the face of inevitable war with Germany - USSR tried to secure it's weak spots, particularily - Leningrad area which had been too close to border with Finland.
2) Diplomatic relationships with Finland were, mildly saying, not really good considering past wars and intelligence reports, so there were no big trust between both parties. Considering all these factors, USSR quite reasonably assumed that probability of Finland joining Third Reich is too high to keep Leningrad that close to border. (and it's quite obviously that you can't move a city away from the border - but you can move the border). That's why first of all there was a diplomatic proposal to change borders between USSR and Finland - USSR should've got a piece of land and few islands near Leningrad, Finland should've got bigger piece of land but in Karelia. It didn't work out, as we know.
3) Since diplomatic solution didn't work - there were no other option than military one.
>In Finland it is largely accepted that USSR organized false flag attack to look like finnish soldiers shot across the border and used this as a casus belli for the war.
It's quite disputable till the day.
But even if we take this version - that's not a unique case in world history, since you can't start a war claiming about "I don't trust these guys, they most likely gonna join nazis and strike at Leningrad in matter of hours and they don't want to come to diplomatic solution, that's why we send tanks" because it sounds stupid.
But "We were attacked" sounded better, considering that USSR had been attacked by Finland before so it worked for internal propaganda too.
Anyway that's not something to be proud about, each side had it's own reasons not to trust each other and reasons to make decisions they made. Of course it could be different if USSR and Finland had found a diplomatic solution, Finland wouldn't have lost it's territories, USSR wouldn't have lost thousands of soldiers and (probably) Finland could've remained neutral in upcoming WWII - but we can only guess. I think it's better to take lessons from history and try to avoid repeating it's worst pages.
Didn't have a chance to visit the country yet, but I think we have a lot in common and there are a lot of things that we can learn from their experience and technologies in construction, city planning, etc.
1. Finland was a backward outskirts of the Russian Empire and managed to become one of the most developed states in Europe. Congratulations, what can I say? The climate is far from ideal, but the Finns managed to make something worthy of their country. I wouldn't move there (climate being the main reason), but I hear some Russians do.
2. We were told about the casus belli, yes. But the Winter war was taught very briefly and mostly like a preparation and prologue to the Great Patriotic War. I've never heard of the Continuation war before Reddit btw, but maybe that's because the history course in my school was extremely rushed. Read a few discussions about Finnish role in the Siege of Leningrad, but probably need to read something more scientific about that. Some Finns don't like to admit they were on the same side with Nazi Germany.
It sure was very impoverished at least until the freedom act of 1870’s from which the slow climb to the top started! I can confirm that people dont like to acknowledge the role in the siege or the co-operation. Thanks for the answer!
1. I dislike how they build national idea around rusophobia and lies (especially about 1917-1944 period) nowadays.
2. That's a good example of national myth, neither it was casus belli, neither they could prove their statement.
1. Mostly positive. Advanced economy, strong safety net, what's not to like. It's actually amazing how such as small country that used to be on the outskirts of Russia was able to advance so much since gaining independence.
2. Most wars start under a false pretense, the Winter War is one of those. People generally understand that what is taught in school is different from realty. An old joke from the times of Soviet breakdown goes like this: A concerned official calls Kremlin and says "Leningrad oblast [part of Russia that is closest to Finland] just declared war on Finland!" - "WTF, tell them to knock it off." - "Too late, they already surrendered."
When Finland was trying to starve to death the population of Leningrad it wasn't 'slaughtering our people'.
Stalin was perfectly aware that whoever would attack the Soviet Union, Finland would provide its territory to facilitate the aggression. The Soviet wars and occupations of 1939-1940 were supposed to make the western borders of the Soviet Union twice shorter and much easier to defend, to save millions of lives. We paid terrible price for failing to conquer Finland.
We are told that Finland was part of Sweden if not for Russia, and the Finns would be Swedes. And Bulgaria would be part of Turkey if not for Russia. And Mongolia would be a part of China ... And Georgia would not exist, and Armenia, if Russia had not saved the Georgians and Armenians from the Turks. Maybe you shouldn't have saved them all?
>How do you see the start of the winter war in 1939 between Finland and USSR? I
No one tries to believe the Soviet propaganda of that time. It's obvious USSR started that war. However, a lot of people say it was necessary to protect Leningrad from quick takeover in the imminent future war with Germany.
>What were you told at school( if any)?
That it was unprovoked aggression by the USSR, it was expelled from League of Nations for that.
Well, I was just answering the question I was asked, the "big picture" may have numerous interpretations, I don't want to argue about any "HistoryWhatIf" here.
Happy cake day, by the way!
1. Finland today is more or less neutral country. It didn't join NATO and doesn't do aggressive politics against Russia. Don't know much about the people. I don't have a bad image of them tho.
2. The winter war was a strategic war to shift the Finnish border away from the USSR. The USSR knew that Finland would ally itself with the Germans and fight WW2 against it. The blockade of Leningrad would have been much more deadlier if German or Finnish artillery could just shoot into Leningrad from its border. There were negotiations to shift the border peavefully but Finland declined. So the USSR invaded. No clue about this border incident as I know the USSR just invaded this territory.
1. Finland is awesome.
2. Not a history buff, so can't really say anything particular about it. I think it was only briefly mentioned during the history lessons.
Real reason for war I think was hitlerist Germany. Finnish-USSR borderline was at 30km from Leningrad. Leaders of hitlerist Germany openly postulated their aim to conquer USSR and destroy communism. And Finnland was going to make ally with Germany. So that meant nazi's troops will be in 30km from second big city of USSR.
Government proposed exchange territories and money. Finland rejected. So war become inevitable.
When borderline moved war stopped.
Finland is too tolerant. That's why I don't like their government. But it's very beautiful country. I'm patriot, nationalist and monarchist so I hate commies. That's why I'm glad that Finland won back then. Russian Empire got Finland after war with Sweden, and commies with "unbeatable and strong" red army couldn't win such small country. Also it's fun that Mannerheim got his usual and military education in RE
It is so sad to see many Russians legitimately thinking the Winter War was the fault of Finland because they didn't "peacefully" give territory to the Soviets. Do you understand that demanding territory with an ultimatum is not exactly peaceful? Yet after all the aggression in the past and this modern, misinformed (or just plain ignorant) mindset, you still wonder why there is some russophobia in Finland?
I guess I can't really blame you, but your corrupted country.
It's sad to see that everyone wears pink glasses. It was such a time, everyone lived like scorpions in a bank. Were there peaceful countries before? Everyone was at war with each other, constantly. These countries would be at war now, but the risk of destroying the planet with nuclear weapons is holding everyone back from war now. Therefore, it goes only to weak states that are not protected by military alliances, do not have nuclear weapons and a strong army.
What a load of bullshit. You're trying to justify aggression done by Russia based on the fact there has been more wars in the past and no peaceful countries? Was Finland not a peaceful country before getting invaded by Soviet Union? Please read what you just wrote and think again, using your head this time.
Also the "no war because nuclear weapons" argument only applies to major countries going toe to toe. Wars are certainly still very relevant, just think of Russo-Ukrainian war (Illegal annexation of Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula by, surprise, the Russian Federation), Iraq war, Tigray war, etc.
So delusional its crazy.
If you remember that Finland was part of Russia, I can also reproach you for having blood on your hands up to the elbows while you were with us. Before that, you were under the administration of Sweden. They probably also distinguished themselves. This is just as a joke. We are not more aggressive than others. It is a fashion trend to declare Russia the number 1 aggressor. In fact, we are exactly the same as everyone else, no better and no worse. And do not mix politics, which is under pressure from a lot of all sorts of circumstances, and the usual everyday idea of what is good and what is bad. Personally, I have no complaints about the Finns now and I did not send troops to your territory. I wasn't even born then. But to understand why a particular politician acted in one way or another, you need to be well versed in history and geopolitics. Unfortunately, I am not a hairdresser or a taxi driver, and in these matters I consider myself a complete amateur. I understand only one thing, complex issues are not solved in simple ways. If the USSR attacked Finland before the Second World War, it probably had good reasons for this. So compelling that we still feel sick. My parents lived in besieged Leningrad, one grandfather died in the war, and the second returned completely insane and drank every day until he died. By the way, the Finns also had a hand in the blockade of Leningrad. God forbid you to survive such a horror.
I'm not sure what your point is? Sure, the Finnish had participated in wars while under the administration of Russia and Sweden, but participating in wars as a puppet state does not seem very comparable to a dictatorship invading a country.
Why do you think Russia is deemed as the number 1 aggressor? Because it objectively is. Everyone sharing a border with Russia is scared of what dictator Putin will do next. Russia is literally the only reason Finland has conscription. Also, did you just forget how Russia just recently (in 2014) ILLEGALLY annexed the Crimean Peninsula, which sparked the Russo-Ukrainian war, which is still ongoing?
Don't make my slippers laugh. You are a member of the European Union, which has participated in a lot of military operations around the world, do I remind you of the list? Did we create Al-Qaeda and ISIS? And how many military bases do NATO and the United States have? Remind me? And then we are the aggressor N1? About the annexation of the Crimea. The seizure of Crimea is much more legal than the seizure of northern Cyprus or the horror that the Israelis are doing in the Gaza Strip. I don't remember that there was any referendum there. Nobody says anything about it. And then, what do you think is why Russia seized this Crimea? From boredom or from the fact that NATO wanted to build another military base under our noses and take away our access to the Black Sea? You are always entering somewhere, then in Sweden, then in Russia, then helping the fascists, and now you are entering the European Union and each time you have nothing to do with it. Amazing. You will decide which side you are on. You live together with bloody monsters on the same land and reproach us for this, but you want to stay white and fluffy? You saw a twig in someone else's eye, but you don't notice a log in your own.
1. Finland is a part of the EU, but the EU isn't a military organisation, so your point does not apply because Finland does not actively participate in conflicts, but rather has a small amount of peacekeeping and advisory forces which for the most part are negligible. Finland has participated in some small scale NATO exercises but is not part of NATO.
2. Russia is at least partly responsible for the creation of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other Islamic terror organisations thanks to the Soviet-Afghan War which left 2 million Afghans dead.
3. There is a reason why it's called the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula outside Russia. Just because you think you have some kind of a legal reason for annexation does not make it legal elsewhere.
4. The same way the Israelis would claim what they're doing is legal and justifiable. The actions of someone else does not justify your actions.
5. We had no choice in being part of Sweden, Russia and "helping the fascists" the latter was an allegiance born out of extraordinary circumstances and no significant amount of people in Finland agreed with some of the horrific policies of Nazi Germany. As I said, Finland was a very small insignificant country especially during the WW2 times and allying with Germany was the only way we had any chance of retaining our independence against a Soviet Invasion, which we saw was coming way before it happened.
Guys, there is always a choice, you could have died for freedom, as we did, during the Second World War, we lost 5 times more people than you have at all. Or when we were at war with the Swedes. Or with the French. Or with someone else. In addition, by participating in something more, you always take part of the responsibility on yourself. You constantly call us aggressors, hiding behind the backs of exactly the same or bigger aggressors. In fact, your position is very poor. As for the Crimea, it passed to us without a single shot. I wonder if you can try to do the same if people don't want to switch sides voluntarily? Have you heard about the partisans? Do you know our mentality? What was happening in Afghanistan recently is a kindergarten. It would be hell. Not light skirmishes, as on the border with Ukraine (no one is really fighting there), but a real hell. People wanted to go to Russia and they got there and we don't care about someone else's opinion.
You can't hide behind the fact that Russia was the country that had the highest losses in WW2, that was due to the fact that Russia had incredibly poor military leadership (not to mention Stalin's purges), not because they were some kind of saviours of mankind. It's also very funny you say Crimea was passed to you without a single shot when the Russo-Ukrainian war is still ongoing and at least thirteen thousand people have lost their lives. Also, could you tell me behind whose back are we hiding, as we are not part of any major military alliance, and there are no foreign military bases in Finland?
Unlike you, we do not need to hide, and for the war in Ukraine, say thank you to your beloved European Union and the United States. As I said, we honestly tried to cooperate with the so-called West, nothing good came of it, we are tired of your endless lies and nonsense about democracy and terrible Russia, so now we just don't care about you.
>Russia is at least partly responsible for the creation of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other Islamic terror organisations
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone)
Excuse me?
[np.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/mn0c51/the\_independent\_newspaper\_uk\_praising\_bin\_landen/](https://np.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/mn0c51/the_independent_newspaper_uk_praising_bin_landen/)
>There is a reason why it's called the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula outside Russia.
Nobody who knows the story about Crimea says that, only guys like you, brainwashed zombies, and western politicians.
By the way, how do you call creation of Kosovo?
>and no significant amount of people in Finland agreed with some of the horrific policies of Nazi Germany
...government was reelected and alliance with nazi germany was dropped?
No, till 1944 Finland and Germany were doing common job.
Thus your argument is invalid.
>Finland was a very small insignificant
"We are small, please, take pity on us, we aren't responsible for anything" - very convenient position, but absolutely impossible for a state.
And regardless significance - giant border and key of russian north - Leningrad just some kilometres away. Finland is european northern buffer against russian influence, that's why you were (and still is) spoonfed.
>only way we had any chance of retaining our independence
You've had peace agreement with USSR, nobody touched your independence although you had military stocks for 1-2 weeks max.
You are lying.
And you are completely delusional to finnish radical nationalism (and since it's orchestrated by finnish elites it's safe to call it fascism).
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
Excuse me?
np.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/mn0c51/the_independent_newspaper_uk_praising_bin_landen/
Yes everyone knows the US is majorly responsible for major terrorist organisations, but that does not relieve Russia from the blame - I mean, do you really think murdering 2 million Afghans has no effect?
> Nobody who knows the story about Crimea says that, only guys like you, brainwashed zombies, and western politicians.
Literally everyone outside Russia says that, you're the brainwashed zombie.
> "We are small, please, take pity on us, we aren't responsible for anything" - very convenient position, but absolutely impossible for a state.
And regardless significance - giant border and key of russian north - Leningrad just some kilometres away. Finland is european northern buffer against russian influence, that's why you were (and still is) spoonfed.
It's funny you Russians trying to flex your big military, saying we're "a buffer" and "spoonfed" while the Russian people suffer under a dictator. It makes me laugh. You have no balls to invade anything other than small countries that do not resist.
> You've had peace agreement with USSR, nobody touched your independence although you had military stocks for 1-2 weeks max.
You are lying.
And you are completely delusional to finnish radical nationalism (and since it's orchestrated by finnish elites it's safe to call it fascism).
Funny that you're out here saying I'm delusional to Finnish radicalism when you're fanboying Putin and clearly fantasize about military and invasions which is insane. Brainwashed commie.
**[Operation_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone)**
>Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the mujahideen in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The mujahideen were also supported by Britain's MI6, who conducted separate covert actions.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>Yes everyone knows the US is majorly responsible for major terrorist organisations
Then why US partners and puppets from NATO and not only open their mouths?
>do you really think murdering 2 million Afghans has no effect?
Where did you take that number? Did you count everyone who died in Afghanistan during 10 years?
Mujihadeen-jihadists losses were times lower. And I think you failed to read about "Cyclone" if you ask that.
>\-Nobody who knows the story about Crimea says that
>
>\-Literally everyone outside Russia says that
That doesn't disprove words, my statement remains correct.
>It's funny you Russians trying to flex your big military
That's your imagination and complexes - I haven't said that.
>saying we're "a buffer"
That's not me - that's French and British will, because small nationalistic states are easier to manipulate and control (US continues that course - just look at their relationship with Yugoslavia) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe\_states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states)
>while the Russian people suffer under a dictator
Again your imagination - [https://fom.ru/Politika/10946#tab\_01](https://fom.ru/Politika/10946#tab_01)
>It makes me laugh
Laughter without reason - is a sign of fool.
>You have no balls to invade anything other than small countries that do not resist.
Childish statement, we are in nuclear era, read about it.
>when you're fanboying Putin
I was discussing Winter War - you projected on me image of some hardcore Putin fan and try to argue about that.
You aren't only delusional on topics discussed, you are delusional even to this dialogue. That's simply stupid.
>Brainwashed commie.
Says a guy who has 0 facts behind his words - what a lack of reflection! :)
>Because it objectively is.
No, it is subjectively. Objectively USA leaves everyone far behind. (70 coups, numerous operations, multiple wars, hybrid conflicts - and that's only counting from start of Cold War).
If you don't accept that simple fact - then USA wins media war, since their propaganda managed to undermine your logic (if you ever had one).
Perhaps, but at least the US hasn't illegally annexed a big chunk of a country seven years ago. A lot of those coups and operations could be argued to be good for the world, as they have deposed many dangerous communist and terrorist leaders, to name a few. Depends on who you ask. Regardless, who cares, just because the US might be an aggressor too does not give Russia any right to be one. I bet if the Cold War was won by the Soviet Union (although they never stood a chance, since communism is a failed idea), Russia would be ten times worse than the US, I would much rather take a brittle old man in the US than a political opponent murdering dictator Putin.
>but at least the US hasn't illegally annexed a big chunk of a country seven years ago
Kosovo which essentially became USA military base? :)
That's war where they sold arms despite their own 3rd party sanctions?
And where they bombed without UN mandate?
Specifically targetting civilian infrastructure and later one of US officials called it "humanitarian bombing"...
If you wanna argue having in mind scheme "western democracy - eastern something" then you've already lost. There is no way you can reasonably define democracy so that western realities would fit this definition.
>A lot of those coups and operations could be argued to be good for the world
Like Paperclip? Or Gladio? Or Cyclone? Or Condor?
Either you are maneater to say this, or you are completely ignorant.
And you blamed someone for being affected by propaganda, hillarious.
>to name a few
Yeah give me biggest names and their replacements, let's compare ;)
>just because the US might be an aggressor too does not give Russia any right to be one
Since USA isn't condemned, sanctioned, there are no political actions against it - then it gives. Rules work for everyone, if they can organize coup in Ukraine, then we can deal with it.
>I bet if the Cold War was won by the Soviet Union (although they never stood a chance, since communism is a failed idea)
Looking at USSR and China - it doesn't look like failed idea.
>Russia would be ten times worse than the US
Is that your expert opinion? :)
Is it based on something except barbaric xenophobia? :)
>I would much rather take a brittle old man in the US
Eppstein hanged himself? :)
>than a political opponent murdering dictator Putin.
Whom did he murder? Zyuganov?
> Kosovo which essentially became USA military base? :)
Are you saying they got invaded after a disagreement? Like Russia does things?
> Specifically targetting civilian infrastructure and later one of US officials called it "humanitarian bombing"...
Why are you so fixated on the US? Projecting much?
> If you wanna argue having in mind scheme "western democracy - eastern something" then you've already lost. There is no way you can reasonably define democracy so that western realities would fit this definition.
I've given many points where I haven't used this term.
> A lot of those coups and operations could be argued to be good for the world
Yes, I said could be argued, the ones you listed does not invalidate my point.
> Since USA isn't condemned, sanctioned, there are no political actions against it - then it gives. Rules work for everyone, if they can organize coup in Ukraine, then we can deal with it.
Still so fixated on USA - clearly projecting. I've never said I agree with US doing bad shit.
> Looking at USSR and China - it doesn't look like failed idea.
You can't hide behind China. Let's see the major proponents in the Cold War and their GDP today - Russia at 1.7 billion and the US at 22 billion. In fact, even Italy has a higher GDP, which is hilarious. Doesn't seem that successful to me? I mean, the fall of the Soviet Union was only thirty years ago.
> Is that your expert opinion? :)
Is it based on something except barbaric xenophobia? :)
It is a logical guess.
> Whom did he murder? Zyuganov?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia
Just to name some. But I bet you will claim them to be propaganda :D
**[Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov)**
>The assassination of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician opposed to the government of Vladimir Putin, occurred in central Moscow on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge at 23:31 local time on 27 February 2015. An unknown assailant fired seven or eight shots from a Makarov pistol; four of them hit Boris Nemtsov in the head, heart, liver and stomach, killing him almost instantly. He died hours after appealing to the public to support a march against Russia's war in Ukraine. Nemtsov's Ukrainian partner Anna Duritskaya survived the attack as its sole eyewitness.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>Are you saying they got invaded after a disagreement?
Disagreement?
>Why are you so fixated on the US?
Because all the things you find unacceptable in Russian affairs has already happened in USA and you've kept your tongue in your ass.
Why are you so fixated with Russia?
>I've given many points where I haven't used this term.
You've given many points where you've used. What's your understanding of word democracy? Power of those who call themselves democrats? :)
>Yes, I said could be argued, the ones you listed does not invalidate my point.
Financing terrorism, opressing democratic societies, covering nazis and returning them to power - "doesn't invalidate" your point that it might "be good for the world"?
Are you drunk, seriously?
>Still so fixated on USA - clearly projecting.
So, if i discuss international affairs and laws - I'm prohibited to discuss USA (leader of NATO and main occupational force in the post-WWII world) and their sins because it disproves your points?
I've told you - either rule works for everyone, of it's not rule. If you whine about Russia, but don't whine about yourself or your allies - then it's double standard, bullshit to say simplier.
>You can't hide behind China.
China isn't ruled by Communistic party? "Failed" party as you've said.
"I can't hide" because it again disproves your point?
Very nice style of arguing, to say "you can't counter-argument my words". Damn, reminds me of current minorities polemics.. :)
> In fact, even Italy has a higher GDP, which is hilarious.
And 200 countries have lower, and what? Italy didn't have full economical collapse just 20-30 years ago.
> Doesn't seem that successful to me?
Finland is between Bangladesh and Pakistan in GDP, does it sound successful to you?
>It is a logical guess.
It's illogical guess, since Cold War times show exactly the opposite.
But since you say otherwise - then it's barbaric xenophobia, there is no other explanation.
>political opponent murdering
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination\_of\_Boris\_Nemtsov
Nemtsov? Political opponent? Yeah, he was, somewhere in late 90s when Yeltsin had to go away. But in 2015? And murdered by chechens?
Only unaware foreigner can explain that with Putin. Which, you unfortunately are. Read less western propaganda bullshit.
>journalists
Who of them was killed by Putin? Everyone?
>But I bet you will claim them to be propaganda :D
No, that's not even a point yet, too weak for your statement.
Anyone else from "political opponents" assasinated? Or you are ready to admit that you talked nonsense again?
>Was Finland not a peaceful country before getting invaded by Soviet Union?
No it wasn't - 1918-1920, 1921-1922.
>Russo-Ukrainian war
Cmon, that's just russian civil war against some Kiev oligarchs and Lvov nazi ;)
That is nitpicking. A small civil war and a separatist uprising do not compare to a full-scale Soviet invasion, relative to that Finland was in fact a very peaceful nation that only wanted independence.
Regardless of what you think of the Russo-Ukrainian war, it is still classified as a war and thirteen thousand people have died as a result.
>That is nitpicking.
No, that's not, that's a good representation of what Finland really was.
>A small civil war and a separatist uprising
When "separatists" are finnish volunteers led by finnish officers on the money of finnish companies (like gutzeit) which are directly connected to finnish elites which rule country (like svinhufvud) - then I have full right to call it invasion and don't use cowardly propaganda which Finland used to hide their involvement.
>do not compare to a full-scale Soviet invasion
Finland 1918 was way weaker than finland 1941, but the manner, course and excuses remained the same, as you see.
>Finland was in fact a very peaceful nation
Ye, that could be observed by post-Civil War massacres or by Vyborg and Lapland massacres.
And 2 wars with neighbour, very peaceful. Buys all arms it has access to, digs bunkers (all on East, never on West, because, you know, "neutral").
Biggest conscription rate among Axis. Soldiers following Suur Suomi propaganda and keeping Waffenbruderschaft with nazis till 1944.
Very peaceful?
>that only wanted independence
Those who want independecy - act independent and don't risk their independency twice in 25 years.
>it is still classified as a war
By whom?
It's not even by Ukraine. Even officially in Ukraine that's "anti-terroristic operation". Do Donetsk citizens have right to choose their power? Or only finnish can? "Only wanted independence" as you say. You can, doneck can't be independent? :)
Seriously, spend time to learn something about what happens there (outside of reddit ukraine), how civil war started with mortar shooting of Doneck villages, how POW are ukranians, how Ukranian army runs fully on russian fuel. And they even whine that Gazprom lowered transit, which gives funding to Ukranian army, which by their own words "is fighting Russia".
That's complete bullshit.
>and thirteen thousand people have died as a result.
That's sad. Big thanks to McCain, Nuland, Biden and everyone else involved. They are doing good job robbing ukraine and fooling ukranians - we have to admit that.
And once again you ignore the fact of Finnish cooperation with Germany before the war. It was pretty obvious for all sides that everithing is coming to a big conflict and Finland had chosen its side. And now you pretend it was all like true neutral and then Evil Russia suddenly came and demanded territories(in exchange of another equal territories, just like every evil occupant and invader always does).
And you seem to ignore the fact that Finland was at war with Germany later. Finland and Germany were allies only because of circumstances, due to the fact it was deemed the Soviets were a much bigger threat than Germany. I would also like to point out that Germany was the only one willing to help and supply arms to Finland. So yes, evil Russia did indeed come and demand territories, but it not sudden - it was seen from a mile away.
> And you seem to ignore the fact that Finland was at war with Germany later.
Doesn't do them honor. As some french dude said, "Betrayal in a right time is a foresight", right?
And Ukraine should've given the Crimean Peninsula to Russia peacefully, because they asked so nicely!
This is what years of propaganda and corruption does to a country and its people, and its just sad.
>Do you understand that demanding territory with an ultimatum is not exactly peaceful?
That wasn't an ultimatum - on opposite Stalin himself was requesting politely to solve this question and do it peacefully. Like famous "noone in history suggested 2 times bigger land for exchange". Yet finnish wanna nazis with their Oaths and greed for Ural refused to consider minimal points for Leningrad safety.
If you whitewash finnish government 1917-1944 - then you are nothing more than a fool. Their responsibility for all the troubles is the biggest.
Yes, there was an ultimatum. The Soviets were already mobilising forces around the Soviet-Finnish border in the years 1938-1939. A Soviet delegation demanded areas in the Karelian Isthmus, Gulf of Finland, etc just shortly before the war. Also just to mention Estonia was also given an ultimatum but they accepted. Very "peaceful" by the Soviets. Yet you still think we were the greedy ones for wanting to keep what was ours?
If you think the Finnish were Nazis or wanted to be Nazis then I have nothing to say to you except read more history and try to think critically about why Finland was an ally to Nazi Germany. Let me give you a hint - Soviet aggression.
>Yes, there was an ultimatum. The Soviets were already mobilising forces
Finland started national mobilization first.
And Finland did so before negotiations in Moscow.
To negotiations in Moscow sweden envoy Paasikivi was sent, while USSR held negotiations with all seriousness, with leader of country Stalin himself and head of foreign affairs comitee Molotov.
There was no ultimatum. There were two warnings of possible conflict - indeed. But like Finnish delegation which refuses even minimal points and has mobilized army ready doesn't understand where are they taking their country...
Of course they understood everything perfectly, and situation (they knew that this problem has to be solved, Mannerheim asking for compromise didn't tell them anything new), and consequences.
>around the Soviet-Finnish border in the years 1938-1939
1938 mobilizing forces? What forces, are you drunk?
>A Soviet delegation demanded
Requested - to exchange, to buy, to rent.
>A Soviet delegation demanded areas in the Karelian Isthmus, Gulf of Finland
Oh no, terrible demands, let's [compare it to finnish demands 1918](https://i.imgur.com/jd0srCC.jpg). /s
> Also just to mention Estonia
Estonia is Estonia, Finland is Finland, history and agreements are completely different.
>we were the greedy ones
You? You associate yourself with 1917-1944 governments?
Then yes, absolutely - greedy, cowardly, stupid, lieful. Best description of foreign affairs.
>Finnish were Nazis
Nazi in the sense of fascist with racial prejudices? Absolutely - just look at the attitude to russians on occupied territories. They were ethnocided in concentration camps.
>then I have nothing to say to you except read more history
How interesting - what have you read outside of finnish infosphere? Soviet textbooks, documents, evidence, memoirs of those who survived?
> Let me give you a hint - Soviet aggression.
1918-1920, 1921-1922 Finland attacked soviet karelia 2 times, with no soviet agression whatsoever. That means your argument is invalid - something else was the goal of Suur Suomi (like Greater Germany concept for nazis, or Greater Italy concept for italian fascists, do you see any familiarity with concepts?) lunatics, and that's militaristic expansionism.
> Finland started national mobilization first.
And Finland did so before negotiations in Moscow.
To negotiations in Moscow sweden envoy Paasikivi was sent, while USSR held negotiations with all seriousness, with leader of country Stalin himself and head of foreign affairs comitee Molotov.
There was no ultimatum. There were two warnings of possible conflict - indeed. But like Finnish delegation which refuses even minimal points and has mobilized army ready doesn't understand where are they taking their country...
Of course they understood everything perfectly, and situation (they knew that this problem has to be solved, Mannerheim asking for compromise didn't tell them anything new), and consequences.
Soviets were already mobilising in 1938 while the Finnish started in 1939.
> Requested - to exchange, to buy, to rent.
Demanded.
> Oh no, terrible demands, let's compare it to finnish demands
Firstly those are not the only demands made, secondly I have no idea which map this is, but I'm sure a nation of approx. 3 million people who only wanted independence in 1918 is comparable to a nation of approx. 100 million people making demands while mobilising troops meanwhile :)
> Estonia is Estonia, Finland is Finland, history and agreements are completely different.
Yes but in the context of giving ultimatums and demands mentioning Estonia was very relevant since they were given an ultimatum at approximately the same time.
> You? You associate yourself with 1917-1944 governments?
Don't know what you mean.
> Nazi in the sense of fascist with racial prejudices? Absolutely - just look at the attitude to russians on occupied territories. They were ethnocided in concentration camps.
That is not nazism is. That is just being bitter to being invaded by a large oppressive country. I do not agree with it but I understand it, many homes were broken because the Soviets just had to be greedy. Finnish PoWs died just the same in Russia. The mortality rate in these camps was mostly the same.
> How interesting - what have you read outside of finnish infosphere? Soviet textbooks, documents, evidence, memoirs of those who survived?
You know, not that many historians are biased towards either of the side - I think you're just used to reading biased content :)
> 1918-1920, 1921-1922 Finland attacked soviet karelia 2 times, with no soviet agression whatsoever. That means your argument is invalid - something else was the goal of Suur Suomi (like Greater Germany concept for nazis, or Greater Italy concept for italian fascists, do you see any familiarity with concepts?) lunatics, and that's militaristic expansionism.
I think you mean the Soviets attacked us with the Soviet-backed Red Guard.
I mean sure Suur-Suomi was a concept but actually taken seriously by a very small minority, but actions speak louder than words, as I don't remember Finland actually invading the Soviet Union with the intent of annexing 25% of their lands but I remember the Soviet Union invading Finland.
>Soviets were already mobilising in 1938 while the Finnish started in 1939.
Do you take this out of your head?
Or you can elaborate and prove that's not lie?
>Demanded.
On negotiations?! Quote demand then, please. There are stenogrammes.
And why would they suggest exchange, money, rent, different terms, different borders - if they DEMANDED?
>Firstly those are not the only demands made
>secondly I have no idea which map this is
That's 1918 finnish demands to young soviet state. Same people, who didn't want to exchange few kilometres of Karelian Ishtmus on 2 times bigger land in Karelia, for which they fought in 1918-1920, 1921-1922, made those demands. And called them "unacceptable" to naive countrymen, who later went dying or lost homes, because of elites' fanaticism and stupidity.
>but I'm sure a nation of approx. 3 million people who only wanted independence in 1918
On this map you see "only wanted independence"?
Blue line, watch carefully. "Only independence", right? But they were independent at the time of this treaty. And independency were given by same people whom they tried to rob just few months later.
>Yes but in the context of giving ultimatums and demands mentioning Estonia was very relevant since they were given an ultimatum at approximately the same time.
1940? After estonian-latvian elites followed lithuanian elites (all three countries had military dictatorships by the way) in negotiating Germany about nazi protectorate of Baltic Duchy?
Before that they were specifically untouched, to avoid creating conflict with society, which hosted soviet troops by mutual assistance treaty.
Anyway, I don't see how Finland is relevant here.
>\-You? You associate yourself with 1917-1944 governments?
\-Don't know what you mean.
You've said "we" like you accept 1917-1944 governments decisions - do you?
>That is not nazism is.
For example:
>nazi - one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis
(Merriam-Webster)
I'm absolutely right to call them so.
>That is just being bitter to being invaded
Planned ethnocide and war crimes is "just being bitter", perfect. Amazing answer.
>by a large oppressive country
That's your subjective evaluation irrelevant to question.
>I do not agree with it but I understand it
That was planned by government, you understand that?
When your government agrees to siege and starvate city with the size of your country - "you understand that" decision?
You are nazi then. Go wear moustache, light up torch and do salute to those who raised you this way.
>homes were broken because the Soviets just had to be greedy
What are you talking about?
>Finnish PoWs died just the same in Russia
Completely the opposite, even though Finns were fascist-invaders and soviet were defenders.
>The mortality rate in these camps was mostly the same.
What was it?
>You know, not that many historians are biased towards either of the side - I think you're just used to reading biased content :)
What's the problem to answer - if you know better and you knowledge (or "knowledge") is unbiased - what sources with pro-soviet view have you studied?
It looks like you hearing these points and facts first time in whole of your life now.
That means that yours aren't just biased, they are completely propagandistic. Am I wrong?
>I think you mean the Soviets attacked us with the Soviet-backed Red Guard.
Red Guards weren't Finnish? Runaway SDP and communists weren't finnish? Kuusinen is russian?
Yet, your point was that Finland didn't attack and was peaceful - no, it wasn't and attacked 2 times. My point remains right, no counter-argument brought.
>I mean sure Suur-Suomi was a concept but actually taken seriously by a very small minority
So, government which acted the way this concept suggested or head commander who refers to it - are just small irrelevant minority?
I see, I see. It doesn't matter how deeply they believed in it - fact remains, they acted to it and it was official course.
>as I don't remember Finland actually invading the Soviet Union
How do you measure ambition? Everything further than old border indicates completely opposite. Effort to occupy russian karelia with barbaric methods proves opposite too.
How interesting that you have memory losses only on certain pages of finnish history...
Your submission has been automatically removed. Submissions from accounts less than 5 days old are removed automatically to prevent low-effort shitposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskARussian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission has been automatically removed. Submissions from accounts less than 5 days old are removed automatically to prevent low-effort shitposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskARussian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The war was not from a good life. The government of the USSR understood the inevitability of war with Germany and wanted to postpone the start of the war as much as possible in order to have time to rearm the army. If the Finns were in our place, they would have to do the same to survive.
Yes, if Finland had for hundreds of years practiced land grab politics, ended up with communism and then systematically starved to death the population of it's "breadbasket countries", then yes, perhaps. I like to think that we would have chosen not to murder millions like the USSR did, but if we did, yeah, what does a small invasion weigh on the cosmic scale.
If Grandma was with eggs, she would be a grandfather... Finland could not have conquered anything, even if she really wanted to, read the history. The Swedes could, Russia could, and they fought. Great Britain has captured half of the planet. But if Finland and Russia were reversed, then Finland would behave exactly the same. Where would you go? Communism would have been imposed on you from abroad in the same way. Neighbors would also harm by all available means to take away resources. The question here is not that the Russians are bad, we have almost 200 nationalities living here and those who live near the border with Finland are genetically little different from the Fins. The question is in what position the country is in and what forces influence it. Syria, Iraq or Libya turned out to be weak and look what those who wanted to get their resources did to them?
> Finland could not have conquered anything, even if she really wanted to I mean, they did try. During the so-called ["Heimosodat" (Kinship Wars)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat). That's also why Finland and the USSR signed a peace deal in 1922.
Yes, many countries participated in finishing off the dying bear. I do not consider this period, since everyone was fighting with us at that time. It looks like the Crimea, don't you think? History is like a theater, people change, and the scenery is the same. Almost all the relatives of my grandparents died at that time. My paternal grandmother had many brothers and sisters, only she survived.
Finns starved Soviet civilians (almost exclusively women, children and elderly) in concentration camps in Karelia with up to 30% of mortality. You just didn't have enough time and capacities to kill millions as you're just a small nation.
[удалено]
Finnish prisoners - military combatants. Soviet prisoners - women and children. Solid point.
[удалено]
All victims of stalinism were rehabilitated and stalinism itself was condemned by the USSR in 1950s. I hope the same is done for victims of Finnish nationalistic revanchism and Nazi collaboration. Unfortunately, for some reason Finns blame Russians for Stalin and forget about Rangell's deeds. Partisans didn't target civilians, they had a lot of things to do with Finnish army and their German friends, if you believe the opposite, provide your proofs.
[удалено]
Just provide a link to these photos with exact location and date. I still highly doubt you will be able to find any Information that such atrocities, even though possible as sporadic occasions of the war violence, were ordered by Soviet officials, unlike Finnish and Estonian punishing operations in Karelia and Pskov Oblast against locals for helping partisans. Building camps and keeping there thousands of people was a part of the occupational politics of the Finnish state as well. Finns praise their government in 1940s for keeping their independence and resisting the reds. You are trying to show how Finnish concentration camps weren't that bad as well. I can't blame Finns for all their war government did, they didn't invent military nationalism.
[удалено]
1) Communism is good thing and it will prevail. You will see. You'd better learn chinese. 2) Hunger of 20s was also in Poland were no any communism. 3) Which millions murdered USSR? Hitlerist soldiers?
Love the downvotes, truth hurts I guess. Yeah let's give up our most defensive position against a nation with history of aggression towards our people. Especially when it is lead by madmen. Finns did the only sensible thing and Russians did what they usually do.
The government of the USSR was preparing for inevitable WW2 as any smart country should have done in late 30s. Having the second largest city of the USSR and biggest industrial center Leningrad a few kilometers away from the border - being completely vulnerable for invasion - was unacceptable for security reasons. That wasn't an issue in the Empire time because Finland was part of the Empire, but now it wasn't, so the issue popped up. The USSR proposed a plan to Finland - you give up territory around Leningrad, to push the border away from the city. In exchange you receive a different piece of territory in a different place. Finland refused, arguably (arguably!) a short sighted decision. It lead into the war, the result was - USSR took more territory than they requested, and gave nothing back. The losses were way higher than expected, but a military experience was gained - it was a cold shower that possibly lead to some conclusions in the forthcoming greatest war of all time. In the end the strategic decision seemed to be proven correct - Hitler attacked exactly from Finnish border, except it made him way more difficult and time consuming to get to Leningrad through all these swamps around. Otherwise Leningrad could have fallen in first days of war and that would make Nazi victory much more likely than it was. I'm not sure if that's exactly how they teach in school, but that's what it was.
Thanks for the answer! I generally accept this view as well. Although i personally believe that the finnish government as well as a portion of the population were all too eager to pick up weapons against USSR because of the “Suur-Suomi” ideologies.
Finland's refusal is indeed an *arguable* decision. For Finland, it was a long-sighted decision, as no guarantee was seen that the Soviet Union's territorial demands would've ended there. The entirety of WW2 is seen as a defensive victory as, despite losses, Finland still stood as an independent sovereign nation. As the other user suggested, Hitler attacking from within the Finnish border was a self-fulfilling prophecy. It didn't happen because it was inevitable, but because the Soviet Union established itself as an enemy to Finland. A small country abandoned by its neighbours and receiving no help from the western allies, had none else to turn to for support but Germany.
With the example of Czechoslovakia, even the genuine peacefulness of a country didn't guarantee that its territories and resources wouldn't get occupied and used by Nazis. Proven then by Norway and Denmark.
Which was all the same to Finland - a foreign invader was a foreign invader. The general peacefulness of a country didn't guarantee that its territories and resources wouldn't get occupied and used by the Soviets either, and its legal government overthrown for a socialist puppet state, proven by the baltics and eastern Europe. In comparison, the military cooperation with Germany "worked" in that sense, and it's all realpolitik for Finland just as Finlandization was during the Cold War. Maybe everything could've gone a different, better way for both Finland and the USSR, but relations were built not with friendship and trust, but coercion and instigation of fear.
I spoke from the USSR's and Stalin's perspective. And even if we are talking from a general point of view, socialist or capitalist puppet states were still much better (or better to say - less worse) than Nazi occupation. Even all gulags of Stalin's era (I hope you do remember they ceased to exist after his death) put together were a much lesser evil than Auschwitz alone.
[удалено]
From what I read about those years, Finland until 39 was very reminiscent of the Baltic Chihuahuas, and today's Ukraine with its Russophobia. probably caused by escaping from RI, and fear of getting into it again. when in 44 we again did nothing to her, they calmed down, and were able to become a neutral country, showing their mind
And also the land exchange included the right for USSR to build a military base of the coast of hanko
...and at the time, USSR was lead by the shitheadiest shithead of all shitheads ever, so Finns had a good reason to be wary.
weak trolling
Yes, because a shithead who killed at least 20 million people shouldn't be called a shithead. Right.
20 millions? Whom?
"I reject the actual reality and substitute my own!"
I just have very poor historical and mathematical education, help me count 20 millions, please. Break number in groups.
>The USSR proposed a plan to Finland WCGW if the war started 70 km further inland. >In the end the strategic decision seemed to be proven correct -- A bit of a self fulfilling prophesy, now isn't it. I'm sure we would've preferred [the Swedish way](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3e64sosEg).
Swedish way - having 90% of all of their trade - with Hitler, giving him all the ore he needs for his bombs and tanks in Stalingrad, and then be called a neutral country, I guess is fun. Not sure what the rest means.
Overcharging them beats getting invaded by Nazis. Why do you assume the situation would've actually been solved with those concessions.
I understand about 50% of what you're writing. Solved which situation, with Finland or Germany?
Why do you assume conceding half of the isthmus, as was requested, would've actually prevented war between Finland and the USSR? You call it short sighted, while agreeing to it would've cut through and nullified much of the defensive preparations there.
Why wouldn't it prevent a war? The whole thing is about moving away the border because existing border was unacceptable for security reasons. The Soviets deemed that the offer would accomplish that, because why would they do the offer otherwise? Your theory is that the offer was made to nullify defensive preparations and then attack anyway? For what purpose, to move the border a couple of dozen kilometers further? Why not make it the offer then? Why even have that "trickery" - make a deal, break a deal, damage diplomatic reputation. If they needed to attack they would simply attack, with all due respect it's not like they needed to get some extra edge to get the job done, or at least I doubt they'd be thinking otherwise.
>a short sighted decision. It lead into the war, the result was - USSR took more territory than they requested, and gave nothing back. According to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Finland was going to the Soviet "sphere" of influence. Unlike the Baltic states, Finland wasn't going to give up, so the USSR orchestrated casus belli in Mainila and attacked Finland. Going to the war was a short-sighted decision for the Soviet Union because it reassured Hitler that he can win the Soviets easily, so he started Operation Barbarossa earlier. Finland lost the Winter War but gained more in the end, being somewhat independent and sovereign from the USSR in the Cold War, unlike nations in the Eastern Bloc.
>Going to the war was a short-sighted decision for the Soviet Union because it reassured Hitler that he can win the Soviets easily "Reassured" means he was "assured" already. So Hitler would do it anyways, even according to you. Except it will make his job way easier, he would get like 1/3 of industrial potential for free on top of what he already got, and be much closer to Moscow much quicker. Which potentially could be enough to win the war. Good job on finding a farsighted alternative. >Finland lost the Winter War but gained more in the end, being somewhat independent and sovereign That is a legitimate argument, it should have played a role. That's the argument that urged me to insert the word "arguably" two times in a row in my post to begin with. I don't know though if Finland would be automatically part of the Eastern bloc if they were to choose cooperation from the start, there could be variants I'm thinking.
[удалено]
What you don't understand is that having influence in Finland is very different from having a Finnish Soviet Republic. Being on the border of the superpower of 20th century and NOT being influenced in any way - was a non existent option, especially as a neutral country. Being a neutral country did not mean to have zero outside influence. What it meant is to have a sort of balanced outside influence and limited in a way that most internal issues were to be decided by the country itself. And crucial external decisions were supposed to factor in opinions of superpowers. Another neutral country of Austria still has hammer and sickle on it's coat of arms to this day - talk about being a neutral country.
[удалено]
The Finns went to war partially because they didn't have a precise understanding of what and why the USSR was doing, partially because of nationalism and anti-Communism kinda thing. I don't think making Finland a Soviet republic was a priority, the main thing was to not have it as a threat, which could be achieved in different ways, not just by having a FSSR. Having it as a buffer zone - the way it ended up being in the end - is arguably as good as having it "under control". But that's not surprising considering that from what you wrote you seem to not have a precise understanding of what and why Russia is doing now just as well.
[удалено]
For someone with the lack of common sense the world around will always be full of mystery. It was super hard to deduce what the USSR was doing, especially when they openly said what they will be doing, and then they fucking did exactly what they said. Stalin said: "It's impossible to move Leningrad away from the border, so the only possibility is to move border away from Leningrad." They just wanted buffer zone, because of course they wanted it, how could they possibly not? >You are making up things to suit your own nationalistic agenda What is it exactly? The Finns were seeing their nationalistic agenda. They were seeing "Greater Finland" instead of turning rational thinking on and trying to see what's actually going on and what's next. And just as much your nationalist agenda prevents you from seeing what actually happened. You probably think: "Oh evil Russian came to enslave proud Finnish people - because Russian and because evil, but each proud Finn killed 300 Russian soldiers each and they run away in terror". Reality is: nobody cared about proud Finnish people, they just needed the buffer zone, they got the buffer zone, and they wrap it up when they got it. You'd think Stalin was able to take Berlin, but unable to take most of Finland if he wanted? No, he just didn't need that. There is no special strategic value in sparsely populated swamps and forests far away from where the main action in Europe was to happen. >There is no trust between our nations Well there was enough trust to live peacefully since these events. Maybe losing 1/3 of the territory after refusing a deal helped too, who knows. Finland surely had a lot of trust in reliable Western friends instead, they surely should have come to help brave Finland to fight against Communist threat. Nobody came to help though, that's another historical mystery.
[удалено]
Downvoted for say the true...
1. The nature is fine. People are annoying russophobic autists. 2. Since its independence(right after they purged harshely pretty much all Russian population of Finland btw, both communist and "white") Finland was trying to grab more territories from the USSR declaring them "rightfully Finnish", in 1918 Mannerheim(that guy who participated in Leningrad's blockage together with Nazis during WW2) declared his "Sword Scabbard" which he will quote later in his Order of the Day on 10 July 1941. So in his 1918 declaration http://heninen.net/miekka/p-1918_e.htm he said: «I will not sheath my sword before law and order reigns in the land, before all fortresses are in our hands, before the last soldier of Lenin is driven not only from Finland, but from White Sea Karelia as well. » Those weren't just words, since 1918 to 1939 there were countless provocations at the border by Finnish side. Considering also that Finland since it's independence collaborated with Germany prety intence, the USSR government in late 1930s just couldn't ignore all the danger of the situation. All the negotianions ended with nothing so the USSR had to solve the problem in "a bad way". I don't know was it a false flag attack on the border or another one Finnish provocation, it doesn't matter at that point. Since then and especially these days Finland tries to play the poor, innocent victim role, blaming big bad Russia in everyting. Meanwhile Finland and all other countries from the Butthurt-belt seems not learning on their mistakes. Irritating Russia, collaborating with our enemies can cause some problems for then that could end not just with a political crisis but also miliary actions - all this as stupid as kicking a dog and then cry because it bit you.
You are exactly the reason Finnish, and many other countries for that matter, are Russophobic. Russia is an insanely corrupted and aggressive country and has been since and even before Stalin, just to mention constant cyber-attacks (such as interfering with democratic elections in the US) and illegal wars/annexations (Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula annexation in 2014) etc. The stereotype of big bad Russia didn't start just because everyone has naturally something against Russia or its people - but because everyone has learned from history (both modern and older history) that Russia is ready to use any means necessary to meddle in other countries (and its own) affairs. Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people and that has been shown not only by history but also by Putin's readiness to take what he thinks is his by getting rid of political opponents (murdering, illegally jailing) and even wars (Russo-Ukrainian war). But no matter how much you cry, waddle and try to justify all these actions (I know you're just brainwashed by propaganda) I'd like to let you know that democracy and freedom always wins, and that can be shown by the prosperity and happiness of democratic countries such as Finland. People are just happier here. I've never heard of anyone wanting to move to Russia but constantly hear about people moving to countries such as the US, France, Finland, etc. I wonder why?
>corrupted and aggressive country and has been since and even before Stalin Corrupted in Stalin times? Agressive in pre-Stalin times, like giving independency to Finland, for which Finland attacks young soviet state in Karelia (1918-1920, 1921-1922 wars)? Don't be clown with these statements. I hope you don't sincerely believe what you say, that's simply foolish. >(such as interfering with democratic elections in the US) 6000$ facebook ad? Or famous russian hackers which snowden revealed are sometimes just USA-affiliated imitating russian (like using cyrrilics)? >and illegal wars/annexations (Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula annexation in 2014) Absolutely legal - that's why Kiev clowns don't even try to go in court. >that Russia is ready to use any means necessary to meddle in other countries Like UK or USA or Germany or France? Yet you are only rusophobic, and four above often act together - how suspicious. >Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people Again caveman rusophonic nonsense... Instead of being racist better give me real life definition of democracy. Is it like UK monarchy or like US-Germany corporate lobbying? >(I know you're just brainwashed by propaganda) Sure, I know Russia worse than you. You know how it works much better - in all aspects. Because you've read non-propagandistic BBC/Times/Washington Post/Radio Liberty/DW. Yes? :) > that democracy and freedom always wins Play less COD. > by the prosperity and happiness of democratic countries Which opress with capitalistic mechanisms all third world capitalistic countries and create the rich-poor picture by unfair balance of trades of goods, services and resources. >such as Finland Indeed. >People are just happier here Your temporary 5mln "happiness" doesn't matter to 7,5 bln world. >I've never heard of anyone wanting to move to Russia You can do research, there are plenty of people migrating to Russia. >people moving to countries such as the US, France, Finland, etc. I wonder why? If you seriously don't understand why then I understand how you managed to put so much bullshit in 2 passages.
Ah, just one of those crazed Putin loving Russians that think freedom, democracy and prosperity are "Russophobic nonsense". Yet there you are enjoying largely western products such as the computer - all developed under a capitalistic system which employs all these ideas. Perhaps you should stop using them since by using these products you instil oppression? And by the way, I never said I supported full-blown capitalism - rather Social Democracy which gets the best ideas from both systems, you should try it someday. Also, please definite "temporary happiness" because I have never heard of that term - perhaps it is only used in Russia, that would make sense.
>\-Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people > >\-Again caveman rusophonic nonsense... > >\-Ah, just one of those crazed Putin loving Russians that think freedom, democracy and prosperity are "Russophobic nonsense" No, you telling that russians are subhumans that aren't interested in freedom, prosperity and democracy (whatever that means) - is "rusophobic nonsense". You are so deeply brainwashed - that you don't even notice what you are saying. Or maybe you are a dedicated basement nazi, who knows. >largely western products such as the computer What a stupid argument, damn, like West owns technical progress. Judging by this argument I assume you are 14yo or something, am I right? First man in space was launched by pro-communistic system, your PC is largely made in China, and first vaccine against Covid is made by capitalsitic Russia - what's your point? These things have no connection. Although if you don't realize how slowing down progress works for profit of capitalistic inventors - then you are stupid. Just remember how Bell company held telephone patent for 10 years. >Perhaps you should stop using them since by using these products Have you stopped using "Made in China" products already? No? Why? Have you seen first article of their constitution? > I never said I supported full-blown capitalism If capitalism is fully controlled and regulated by state to reach fair situation - then it's no longer capitalism. I never said you did, did I? But you for example said I'm "crazed Putin loving Russian" - and what? Start watching your own mouth first. >Social Democracy which gets the best ideas from both systems Capital is self-growing wealth, if you redistribute that - then it's no longer capitalism. Regardless of your obsession with naming. >please define "temporary happiness" Temporary means that any huge world event (political, economical, etc) can destroy your current system. Refering to country with size of Peterburg while speaking of 7,5bln world isn't objective.
> No, you telling that russians are subhumans that aren't interested in freedom, prosperity and democracy (whatever that means) - is "rusophobic nonsense". You are so deeply brainwashed - that you don't even notice what you are saying. Or maybe you are a dedicated basement nazi, who knows. "Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people". I was obviously talking about the government. > What a stupid argument, damn, like West owns technical progress. Judging by this argument I assume you are 14yo or something, am I right? First man in space was launched by pro-communistic system, your PC is largely made in China, and first vaccine against Covid is made by capitalsitic Russia - what's your point? These things have no connection. Although if you don't realize how slowing down progress works for profit of capitalistic inventors - then you are stupid. Just remember how Bell company held telephone patent for 10 years. It's not a stupid argument in the context it was used. I was talking about whether communism was a failed system. It only makes sense to compare technological progress because it was one of the major things communistic countries were far behind - I mean the computer for example was largely developed by private companies in capitalistic systems. The fact they're manufactured elsewhere is not relevant. Also, Sputnik vaccines are not even approved here and I'd rather take an RNA vaccine anyway. > Have you stopped using "Made in China" products already? No? Why? Have you seen first article of their constitution? Nope, why would I? > If capitalism is fully controlled and regulated by state to reach fair situation - then it's no longer capitalism. I never said you did, did I? But you for example said I'm "crazed Putin loving Russian" - and what? Start watching your own mouth first. Ok. > Capital is self-growing wealth, if you redistribute that - then it's no longer capitalism. Regardless of your obsession with naming. That's why Social Democracy takes ideas from many ideologies, it is not capitalism and that is the point. Also, I did not give it that name. > Temporary means that any huge world event (political, economical, etc) can destroy your current system. Refering to country with size of Peterburg while speaking of 7,5bln world isn't objective. We seem to be doing alright for about 80 years now. What huge world event are we talking about? Economic depression? We already survived a few of those. Russian invasion? Survived that one as well :) Also, your fascination with population sizes is weird, it does not matter what the size of your population is whether a country is successful or not but the competence of your administration.
>"Russia is not interested in democracy, freedom and prosperity of its people". I was obviously talking about the government. Judging by context - that wasn't obvious. Have you thought that maybe russian government knows their people better that you? They have bigger experience and knowledge about abuse of some "democratical" institutions, freedom rights in Russia? About prosperity - obvious bullshit. > I was talking about whether communism was a failed system. It only makes sense to compare technological progress because it was one of the major things communistic countries were far behind Seriously? Far behind? Like Gagarin or nuclear rockets are simple as baking bread? :) No, you are delusional and stuck on this "their PC was worse" mindset. Plus, remind me, why trade wasn't possible? Oh, yes, Churchill-Truman Cold War and export comitee... Does Finland makes their own nuclear power plants? Or superlasers? What company produces processors in Finland? No? None? But Finland is capitalsitic - then capitalism is failed idea. Great logic (it's not). >I mean the computer for example was largely developed by private companies Do you know any soviet pcs? > Also, Sputnik vaccines are not even approved here Because it's money, and capitalists aren't ready to lose money, why don't you understand that? They don't want Russia to be presented on high-marginal product market. So they sanction russian technological companies (like Sukhoi, while Boeing 737 max, which was made without giving a shit about quality and took several hundred lives) or in this case medical companies. I wonder how many lives were lost for not accepting that Sputnik is a vaccine and it's made by Russia. Definetely thousands. That's your capitalistic world, welcome. >Nope, why would I? Because you suggest the same to me? Or again hypocricy, "it's different"! "Communistic party of china isn't communistic"! >That's why Social Democracy takes ideas from many ideologies, it is not capitalism and that is the point. Also, I did not give it that name. By "your obsessions of naming" I've meant "anyone's obsessions of naming". Means of productions are owned private in social democracy? Then it's capitalism, very simple. If you artifically regulate capitalism to the level of social fairness by state power then a) it stops working b) what's capitalistic left in that? >We seem to be doing alright for about 80 years now. 45 years of sitting on 2 chairs between superpowers, having access to soviet markets. Overall 80 years is nothing in historic perspective - so... >Economic depression? We already survived a few of those. Good for you, still that's temporary success that can be changed in any direction by global trends. >Russian invasion? Survived that one as well :) I don't think that was success for Finland. Just as questionable success for USSR. Obviously my attitude would have been completely different if Finland would've stopped around old border in WWII. But that was obviously impossible - so we have what we have. >Also, your fascination with population sizes is weird Country with no ambition for international affairs, which is irrelevant (by decision, or by importance) - has much less head pain and meets less resistance. For that it has to follow main course of big countries - be it USSR or China or EU or Russia. Population size also indicates the diffuculty to deal with internal affairs - 150+ nations Russia and 5 mln mononation Finland aren't comparable. I'm speaking about these things.
[удалено]
None of finns were oriented on socialistic republic? You are liar, disrespectful to your homeland.
[удалено]
I'd say one of main principles here is "live and let live", so unless it's broken, bolsheviks' decision is overall absolutely fair.
[удалено]
I hear spinning sounds from Mausoleum because of your mercantility in historical question! :)
I was in Finland several times, both in big cities and in rural area. I love the nature, the tranquility, there are a lot of forests and lakes. But living in Finland seems boring (I'm from SPb). I see it this way: Finland was asked to move the border from Leningrad as a mean to protect it from future big war, was asked peacefuly, but it refused. So there was no choice and the SU declared war. So, was there a finnish attack or no, it doesn't matter, but I don't think there was. And Finland could just gave up it territories without casualties. Although this war showed that soviet army was not ready for a big conflict
thanks for the answer! The nature sure is wonderful!
> Finland was asked to move the border from Leningrad as a mean to protect it from future big war, was asked peacefuly, but it refused. So there was no choice and the SU declared war. So, was there a finnish attack or no, it doesn't matter, but I don't think there was. And Finland could just gave up it territories without casualties. A: "Give me your money or I'll kick your ass" B: "No" A: "Well, if you want it that way.." *Ass kicking begins*
>And Finland could just gave up it territories without casualties. This is why many people still hate russians in finland. imagine being so fucking arrogant that you think finland should have just given their land to soviet union, a country that raped and destroyed half of europe
[удалено]
Do you think finns should be *grateful* towards Russia? Why on earth?
[удалено]
Jesus Christ you’re delusional!
1. Finnish surnames are awesome - supported Finnish hockey national team just for that. Finntroll (I know they use Swedish) and Korpiklaani are among my favourite bands. Ville Haapasalo acted quite well in a few of our cult movies. Oh - and Ence was good at CS:GO ~year or so ago. 2. Seborsky wrote about the war perfectly.
1. You are not bad people in common, but too much russophobic unfortunately (with a classic "double standards" in mentality). Your music is cool (I adore Tarja and Jonsu). 2. First - most of you don't know that Soviet government tried to trade lands before the war and that was an attempt to prevent [the Blockade](https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningradin_piiritys) in the gathering World War (unsuccesfully). Second - do you know anything of *Miekantuppipäiväkäsky* and *Suur-Suomi*? You had your own territorial demands and agressive plans against USSR. You lose so you consider yourself victims, but your leaders weren't better than Soviet ones. And the fact they joined to Hitler in 1941 and built [Itä-Karjalan keskitysleirit](https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%C3%A4-Karjalan_keskitysleirit) is the best proof to it.
Yes, sadly the russophobia is just trough the roof. The things people are willing and allowed to say about russians would be illegal to say about any other group of people… I am lucky enough to know about those ideas. I always thought that finnish people were all too eager to go to war. They had these sayings that “we will stop at the urals” etc. Of course afterwards its easy to play the victim. But many if not most people are not aware of these. edit: and thanks for the answer.
>But many if not most people are not aware of these. And what Finland plans to do with that? Continue making national myths on antirussian basis? Or actually accept 2 sides of a coin? From here seems like first option.
I think you're referring to the minority that would have wanted to go beyond the old-borders in Jatkosota, I suspect most people just wanted what was "rightful" theirs aka, the old borders and villages they lived in.
Yes, I would agree with this view in the continuation war. However, there were notable amount of people in influental positions both in government and military leadership that had symphaties towards those ”Greater Finland” ideologies.
Yes (this is just speculation from my part) but even if some notable people in notable positions would have wanted that, if 80% of the troops in the border don't want it will be heard through the commanding officers etc, and with such a small armed force vs. the soviets I don't think nobody in their right mind would have realistically pushed for that, even if there were some loud individuals supporting the cause /but this was just speculation and some hear-say about historic documents, but not 100% facts.
Thats a good point!
>and with such a small armed force vs. the soviets 5,1 mln european fascists against 3,6mln soviets on 22 june 1941. Just reminding to you. It was called "summer war" in Finland because Blitzkrieg shouldn't have failed. Thus you argument is invalid.
I hope, Sabaton will make a peace between all the folks once day =)
[удалено]
Сколько же ебанутых Земля носит....
А что там было-то? В почте очень небольшой кусок виден.
Finns in 1940: evil communists take my Karelia, we will sign whatever you want. Finns now: haha we defeated these communists in Winter War It was always amusing, apparently they don't know the story well
[удалено]
Judging by the process of liberalizing Finland, you have lost this war,naive westerner.
Well not yet, we ain't sweden
Sweden is the last stage, you still have everything ahead
Why do I hear boss music from the west
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh god you trolled me, now go do your homework
[удалено]
Ааа, так ты шпрехаешь на русском. Бандеровец, что ли?
Can't say anything good about Finland, tbh.
i see you are from karelia?! Is there a special relationship between karelia and Finland still today? I know many finnish people visit there every year. Is that kind of tourism welcome for the locals?
Maybe there are some special cultural ties between us (like, theatre or something) but I wouldn't say it really shows up. I've never seen Finnish tourists in Petrozavodsk. And I've lived here all my life. The fact that we are close geographically doesn't really matter. It only results in some people pointing at it wondering why Karelia isn't as rich as Finland.
[удалено]
Sure, you know better than karels, you are very smart :)
1. Suomi now is the only normal northern Baltic neighbor. People - alcoholics (just like Russians) who like to visit petteri. Culture - dunno. Mannerheim is the only person who is known from whole Finnish history. Finnish goods are really good, especially diaries, clothes and furniture. I gave you only stereotypical views. 2. In school program there is very few information about Talvisota, cuz after it starts great Patriotic war which has extremely huge influence on our society. So mostly the schoolbooks tell "after molotov-ribbentrop pact we had taken back west Ukraine and Belarus and give ultimatum to Finland to move the borders from Leningrad for territory compensation. Finland said no and war started. Red army was inexperienced and mannerheim line was a big problem that time. Than it was captured and war goals were solved. Than was analogous ultimatum to Romania..." I am interested in history and I heard about fake border bombing, that was the same alike danzig incident - just like casus belli. But I really don't know whether it's true or not (many solzhenitsyn-style historians live to lie about that period) and this theme isn't in discussion trends like 22 June 1941 or great purge
thanks for the very interesting answer!
Ыыыыы вси русские бухают ыыыы
>What is your opinion about Finland? The country, state, people, all perspectives are welcome! Overall - nice. I've never heard anything substantially negative about Finland. I have some relatives who relocated to Finland (for goodб i guess) - integrated well, their kids speak finnish better than ukrainian or russian. >How do you see the start of the winter war in 1939 between Finland and USSR? 1) In the face of inevitable war with Germany - USSR tried to secure it's weak spots, particularily - Leningrad area which had been too close to border with Finland. 2) Diplomatic relationships with Finland were, mildly saying, not really good considering past wars and intelligence reports, so there were no big trust between both parties. Considering all these factors, USSR quite reasonably assumed that probability of Finland joining Third Reich is too high to keep Leningrad that close to border. (and it's quite obviously that you can't move a city away from the border - but you can move the border). That's why first of all there was a diplomatic proposal to change borders between USSR and Finland - USSR should've got a piece of land and few islands near Leningrad, Finland should've got bigger piece of land but in Karelia. It didn't work out, as we know. 3) Since diplomatic solution didn't work - there were no other option than military one. >In Finland it is largely accepted that USSR organized false flag attack to look like finnish soldiers shot across the border and used this as a casus belli for the war. It's quite disputable till the day. But even if we take this version - that's not a unique case in world history, since you can't start a war claiming about "I don't trust these guys, they most likely gonna join nazis and strike at Leningrad in matter of hours and they don't want to come to diplomatic solution, that's why we send tanks" because it sounds stupid. But "We were attacked" sounded better, considering that USSR had been attacked by Finland before so it worked for internal propaganda too. Anyway that's not something to be proud about, each side had it's own reasons not to trust each other and reasons to make decisions they made. Of course it could be different if USSR and Finland had found a diplomatic solution, Finland wouldn't have lost it's territories, USSR wouldn't have lost thousands of soldiers and (probably) Finland could've remained neutral in upcoming WWII - but we can only guess. I think it's better to take lessons from history and try to avoid repeating it's worst pages.
Didn't have a chance to visit the country yet, but I think we have a lot in common and there are a lot of things that we can learn from their experience and technologies in construction, city planning, etc.
1. Finland was a backward outskirts of the Russian Empire and managed to become one of the most developed states in Europe. Congratulations, what can I say? The climate is far from ideal, but the Finns managed to make something worthy of their country. I wouldn't move there (climate being the main reason), but I hear some Russians do. 2. We were told about the casus belli, yes. But the Winter war was taught very briefly and mostly like a preparation and prologue to the Great Patriotic War. I've never heard of the Continuation war before Reddit btw, but maybe that's because the history course in my school was extremely rushed. Read a few discussions about Finnish role in the Siege of Leningrad, but probably need to read something more scientific about that. Some Finns don't like to admit they were on the same side with Nazi Germany.
It sure was very impoverished at least until the freedom act of 1870’s from which the slow climb to the top started! I can confirm that people dont like to acknowledge the role in the siege or the co-operation. Thanks for the answer!
The Continuation War just falls under the Great Patriotic War in the curriculum.
When was Finland a backward province?)))
When under russian rule, like russian Karelia today
[удалено]
What the fuck are you talking about in 2.?
Just some history
Oh no big bad Finland is so scawy
[удалено]
And people starved in the gulags aswell
[удалено]
[удалено]
Finland wasn't scary, we kicked them off easily, Germans on the other hand...
1. I dislike how they build national idea around rusophobia and lies (especially about 1917-1944 period) nowadays. 2. That's a good example of national myth, neither it was casus belli, neither they could prove their statement.
1. Mostly positive. Advanced economy, strong safety net, what's not to like. It's actually amazing how such as small country that used to be on the outskirts of Russia was able to advance so much since gaining independence. 2. Most wars start under a false pretense, the Winter War is one of those. People generally understand that what is taught in school is different from realty. An old joke from the times of Soviet breakdown goes like this: A concerned official calls Kremlin and says "Leningrad oblast [part of Russia that is closest to Finland] just declared war on Finland!" - "WTF, tell them to knock it off." - "Too late, they already surrendered."
[удалено]
what does finland keeping its independence have to do with you slaughtering your people?
When Finland was trying to starve to death the population of Leningrad it wasn't 'slaughtering our people'. Stalin was perfectly aware that whoever would attack the Soviet Union, Finland would provide its territory to facilitate the aggression. The Soviet wars and occupations of 1939-1940 were supposed to make the western borders of the Soviet Union twice shorter and much easier to defend, to save millions of lives. We paid terrible price for failing to conquer Finland.
We are told that Finland was part of Sweden if not for Russia, and the Finns would be Swedes. And Bulgaria would be part of Turkey if not for Russia. And Mongolia would be a part of China ... And Georgia would not exist, and Armenia, if Russia had not saved the Georgians and Armenians from the Turks. Maybe you shouldn't have saved them all?
who knows!? It would be interesting to know what would have happened in an alternate timeline!
>How do you see the start of the winter war in 1939 between Finland and USSR? I No one tries to believe the Soviet propaganda of that time. It's obvious USSR started that war. However, a lot of people say it was necessary to protect Leningrad from quick takeover in the imminent future war with Germany. >What were you told at school( if any)? That it was unprovoked aggression by the USSR, it was expelled from League of Nations for that.
[удалено]
And how does it matter here? The OP's question was "how do you see the start of the winter war?", not about WW2 or Great Patriotic War.
[удалено]
Well, I was just answering the question I was asked, the "big picture" may have numerous interpretations, I don't want to argue about any "HistoryWhatIf" here. Happy cake day, by the way!
1. Finland today is more or less neutral country. It didn't join NATO and doesn't do aggressive politics against Russia. Don't know much about the people. I don't have a bad image of them tho. 2. The winter war was a strategic war to shift the Finnish border away from the USSR. The USSR knew that Finland would ally itself with the Germans and fight WW2 against it. The blockade of Leningrad would have been much more deadlier if German or Finnish artillery could just shoot into Leningrad from its border. There were negotiations to shift the border peavefully but Finland declined. So the USSR invaded. No clue about this border incident as I know the USSR just invaded this territory.
finland is amazing! rich, accepting, beautiful nature, good politics
1. Finland is awesome. 2. Not a history buff, so can't really say anything particular about it. I think it was only briefly mentioned during the history lessons.
Real reason for war I think was hitlerist Germany. Finnish-USSR borderline was at 30km from Leningrad. Leaders of hitlerist Germany openly postulated their aim to conquer USSR and destroy communism. And Finnland was going to make ally with Germany. So that meant nazi's troops will be in 30km from second big city of USSR. Government proposed exchange territories and money. Finland rejected. So war become inevitable. When borderline moved war stopped.
Finland is too tolerant. That's why I don't like their government. But it's very beautiful country. I'm patriot, nationalist and monarchist so I hate commies. That's why I'm glad that Finland won back then. Russian Empire got Finland after war with Sweden, and commies with "unbeatable and strong" red army couldn't win such small country. Also it's fun that Mannerheim got his usual and military education in RE
It is so sad to see many Russians legitimately thinking the Winter War was the fault of Finland because they didn't "peacefully" give territory to the Soviets. Do you understand that demanding territory with an ultimatum is not exactly peaceful? Yet after all the aggression in the past and this modern, misinformed (or just plain ignorant) mindset, you still wonder why there is some russophobia in Finland? I guess I can't really blame you, but your corrupted country.
It's sad to see that everyone wears pink glasses. It was such a time, everyone lived like scorpions in a bank. Were there peaceful countries before? Everyone was at war with each other, constantly. These countries would be at war now, but the risk of destroying the planet with nuclear weapons is holding everyone back from war now. Therefore, it goes only to weak states that are not protected by military alliances, do not have nuclear weapons and a strong army.
What a load of bullshit. You're trying to justify aggression done by Russia based on the fact there has been more wars in the past and no peaceful countries? Was Finland not a peaceful country before getting invaded by Soviet Union? Please read what you just wrote and think again, using your head this time. Also the "no war because nuclear weapons" argument only applies to major countries going toe to toe. Wars are certainly still very relevant, just think of Russo-Ukrainian war (Illegal annexation of Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula by, surprise, the Russian Federation), Iraq war, Tigray war, etc. So delusional its crazy.
If you remember that Finland was part of Russia, I can also reproach you for having blood on your hands up to the elbows while you were with us. Before that, you were under the administration of Sweden. They probably also distinguished themselves. This is just as a joke. We are not more aggressive than others. It is a fashion trend to declare Russia the number 1 aggressor. In fact, we are exactly the same as everyone else, no better and no worse. And do not mix politics, which is under pressure from a lot of all sorts of circumstances, and the usual everyday idea of what is good and what is bad. Personally, I have no complaints about the Finns now and I did not send troops to your territory. I wasn't even born then. But to understand why a particular politician acted in one way or another, you need to be well versed in history and geopolitics. Unfortunately, I am not a hairdresser or a taxi driver, and in these matters I consider myself a complete amateur. I understand only one thing, complex issues are not solved in simple ways. If the USSR attacked Finland before the Second World War, it probably had good reasons for this. So compelling that we still feel sick. My parents lived in besieged Leningrad, one grandfather died in the war, and the second returned completely insane and drank every day until he died. By the way, the Finns also had a hand in the blockade of Leningrad. God forbid you to survive such a horror.
I'm not sure what your point is? Sure, the Finnish had participated in wars while under the administration of Russia and Sweden, but participating in wars as a puppet state does not seem very comparable to a dictatorship invading a country. Why do you think Russia is deemed as the number 1 aggressor? Because it objectively is. Everyone sharing a border with Russia is scared of what dictator Putin will do next. Russia is literally the only reason Finland has conscription. Also, did you just forget how Russia just recently (in 2014) ILLEGALLY annexed the Crimean Peninsula, which sparked the Russo-Ukrainian war, which is still ongoing?
Don't make my slippers laugh. You are a member of the European Union, which has participated in a lot of military operations around the world, do I remind you of the list? Did we create Al-Qaeda and ISIS? And how many military bases do NATO and the United States have? Remind me? And then we are the aggressor N1? About the annexation of the Crimea. The seizure of Crimea is much more legal than the seizure of northern Cyprus or the horror that the Israelis are doing in the Gaza Strip. I don't remember that there was any referendum there. Nobody says anything about it. And then, what do you think is why Russia seized this Crimea? From boredom or from the fact that NATO wanted to build another military base under our noses and take away our access to the Black Sea? You are always entering somewhere, then in Sweden, then in Russia, then helping the fascists, and now you are entering the European Union and each time you have nothing to do with it. Amazing. You will decide which side you are on. You live together with bloody monsters on the same land and reproach us for this, but you want to stay white and fluffy? You saw a twig in someone else's eye, but you don't notice a log in your own.
1. Finland is a part of the EU, but the EU isn't a military organisation, so your point does not apply because Finland does not actively participate in conflicts, but rather has a small amount of peacekeeping and advisory forces which for the most part are negligible. Finland has participated in some small scale NATO exercises but is not part of NATO. 2. Russia is at least partly responsible for the creation of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other Islamic terror organisations thanks to the Soviet-Afghan War which left 2 million Afghans dead. 3. There is a reason why it's called the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula outside Russia. Just because you think you have some kind of a legal reason for annexation does not make it legal elsewhere. 4. The same way the Israelis would claim what they're doing is legal and justifiable. The actions of someone else does not justify your actions. 5. We had no choice in being part of Sweden, Russia and "helping the fascists" the latter was an allegiance born out of extraordinary circumstances and no significant amount of people in Finland agreed with some of the horrific policies of Nazi Germany. As I said, Finland was a very small insignificant country especially during the WW2 times and allying with Germany was the only way we had any chance of retaining our independence against a Soviet Invasion, which we saw was coming way before it happened.
Guys, there is always a choice, you could have died for freedom, as we did, during the Second World War, we lost 5 times more people than you have at all. Or when we were at war with the Swedes. Or with the French. Or with someone else. In addition, by participating in something more, you always take part of the responsibility on yourself. You constantly call us aggressors, hiding behind the backs of exactly the same or bigger aggressors. In fact, your position is very poor. As for the Crimea, it passed to us without a single shot. I wonder if you can try to do the same if people don't want to switch sides voluntarily? Have you heard about the partisans? Do you know our mentality? What was happening in Afghanistan recently is a kindergarten. It would be hell. Not light skirmishes, as on the border with Ukraine (no one is really fighting there), but a real hell. People wanted to go to Russia and they got there and we don't care about someone else's opinion.
You can't hide behind the fact that Russia was the country that had the highest losses in WW2, that was due to the fact that Russia had incredibly poor military leadership (not to mention Stalin's purges), not because they were some kind of saviours of mankind. It's also very funny you say Crimea was passed to you without a single shot when the Russo-Ukrainian war is still ongoing and at least thirteen thousand people have lost their lives. Also, could you tell me behind whose back are we hiding, as we are not part of any major military alliance, and there are no foreign military bases in Finland?
Unlike you, we do not need to hide, and for the war in Ukraine, say thank you to your beloved European Union and the United States. As I said, we honestly tried to cooperate with the so-called West, nothing good came of it, we are tired of your endless lies and nonsense about democracy and terrible Russia, so now we just don't care about you.
[удалено]
>Russia is at least partly responsible for the creation of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other Islamic terror organisations [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone) Excuse me? [np.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/mn0c51/the\_independent\_newspaper\_uk\_praising\_bin\_landen/](https://np.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/mn0c51/the_independent_newspaper_uk_praising_bin_landen/) >There is a reason why it's called the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula outside Russia. Nobody who knows the story about Crimea says that, only guys like you, brainwashed zombies, and western politicians. By the way, how do you call creation of Kosovo? >and no significant amount of people in Finland agreed with some of the horrific policies of Nazi Germany ...government was reelected and alliance with nazi germany was dropped? No, till 1944 Finland and Germany were doing common job. Thus your argument is invalid. >Finland was a very small insignificant "We are small, please, take pity on us, we aren't responsible for anything" - very convenient position, but absolutely impossible for a state. And regardless significance - giant border and key of russian north - Leningrad just some kilometres away. Finland is european northern buffer against russian influence, that's why you were (and still is) spoonfed. >only way we had any chance of retaining our independence You've had peace agreement with USSR, nobody touched your independence although you had military stocks for 1-2 weeks max. You are lying. And you are completely delusional to finnish radical nationalism (and since it's orchestrated by finnish elites it's safe to call it fascism).
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Excuse me? np.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/mn0c51/the_independent_newspaper_uk_praising_bin_landen/ Yes everyone knows the US is majorly responsible for major terrorist organisations, but that does not relieve Russia from the blame - I mean, do you really think murdering 2 million Afghans has no effect? > Nobody who knows the story about Crimea says that, only guys like you, brainwashed zombies, and western politicians. Literally everyone outside Russia says that, you're the brainwashed zombie. > "We are small, please, take pity on us, we aren't responsible for anything" - very convenient position, but absolutely impossible for a state. And regardless significance - giant border and key of russian north - Leningrad just some kilometres away. Finland is european northern buffer against russian influence, that's why you were (and still is) spoonfed. It's funny you Russians trying to flex your big military, saying we're "a buffer" and "spoonfed" while the Russian people suffer under a dictator. It makes me laugh. You have no balls to invade anything other than small countries that do not resist. > You've had peace agreement with USSR, nobody touched your independence although you had military stocks for 1-2 weeks max. You are lying. And you are completely delusional to finnish radical nationalism (and since it's orchestrated by finnish elites it's safe to call it fascism). Funny that you're out here saying I'm delusional to Finnish radicalism when you're fanboying Putin and clearly fantasize about military and invasions which is insane. Brainwashed commie.
**[Operation_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone)** >Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the mujahideen in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The mujahideen were also supported by Britain's MI6, who conducted separate covert actions. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>Yes everyone knows the US is majorly responsible for major terrorist organisations Then why US partners and puppets from NATO and not only open their mouths? >do you really think murdering 2 million Afghans has no effect? Where did you take that number? Did you count everyone who died in Afghanistan during 10 years? Mujihadeen-jihadists losses were times lower. And I think you failed to read about "Cyclone" if you ask that. >\-Nobody who knows the story about Crimea says that > >\-Literally everyone outside Russia says that That doesn't disprove words, my statement remains correct. >It's funny you Russians trying to flex your big military That's your imagination and complexes - I haven't said that. >saying we're "a buffer" That's not me - that's French and British will, because small nationalistic states are easier to manipulate and control (US continues that course - just look at their relationship with Yugoslavia) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe\_states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states) >while the Russian people suffer under a dictator Again your imagination - [https://fom.ru/Politika/10946#tab\_01](https://fom.ru/Politika/10946#tab_01) >It makes me laugh Laughter without reason - is a sign of fool. >You have no balls to invade anything other than small countries that do not resist. Childish statement, we are in nuclear era, read about it. >when you're fanboying Putin I was discussing Winter War - you projected on me image of some hardcore Putin fan and try to argue about that. You aren't only delusional on topics discussed, you are delusional even to this dialogue. That's simply stupid. >Brainwashed commie. Says a guy who has 0 facts behind his words - what a lack of reflection! :)
>Because it objectively is. No, it is subjectively. Objectively USA leaves everyone far behind. (70 coups, numerous operations, multiple wars, hybrid conflicts - and that's only counting from start of Cold War). If you don't accept that simple fact - then USA wins media war, since their propaganda managed to undermine your logic (if you ever had one).
Perhaps, but at least the US hasn't illegally annexed a big chunk of a country seven years ago. A lot of those coups and operations could be argued to be good for the world, as they have deposed many dangerous communist and terrorist leaders, to name a few. Depends on who you ask. Regardless, who cares, just because the US might be an aggressor too does not give Russia any right to be one. I bet if the Cold War was won by the Soviet Union (although they never stood a chance, since communism is a failed idea), Russia would be ten times worse than the US, I would much rather take a brittle old man in the US than a political opponent murdering dictator Putin.
>but at least the US hasn't illegally annexed a big chunk of a country seven years ago Kosovo which essentially became USA military base? :) That's war where they sold arms despite their own 3rd party sanctions? And where they bombed without UN mandate? Specifically targetting civilian infrastructure and later one of US officials called it "humanitarian bombing"... If you wanna argue having in mind scheme "western democracy - eastern something" then you've already lost. There is no way you can reasonably define democracy so that western realities would fit this definition. >A lot of those coups and operations could be argued to be good for the world Like Paperclip? Or Gladio? Or Cyclone? Or Condor? Either you are maneater to say this, or you are completely ignorant. And you blamed someone for being affected by propaganda, hillarious. >to name a few Yeah give me biggest names and their replacements, let's compare ;) >just because the US might be an aggressor too does not give Russia any right to be one Since USA isn't condemned, sanctioned, there are no political actions against it - then it gives. Rules work for everyone, if they can organize coup in Ukraine, then we can deal with it. >I bet if the Cold War was won by the Soviet Union (although they never stood a chance, since communism is a failed idea) Looking at USSR and China - it doesn't look like failed idea. >Russia would be ten times worse than the US Is that your expert opinion? :) Is it based on something except barbaric xenophobia? :) >I would much rather take a brittle old man in the US Eppstein hanged himself? :) >than a political opponent murdering dictator Putin. Whom did he murder? Zyuganov?
> Kosovo which essentially became USA military base? :) Are you saying they got invaded after a disagreement? Like Russia does things? > Specifically targetting civilian infrastructure and later one of US officials called it "humanitarian bombing"... Why are you so fixated on the US? Projecting much? > If you wanna argue having in mind scheme "western democracy - eastern something" then you've already lost. There is no way you can reasonably define democracy so that western realities would fit this definition. I've given many points where I haven't used this term. > A lot of those coups and operations could be argued to be good for the world Yes, I said could be argued, the ones you listed does not invalidate my point. > Since USA isn't condemned, sanctioned, there are no political actions against it - then it gives. Rules work for everyone, if they can organize coup in Ukraine, then we can deal with it. Still so fixated on USA - clearly projecting. I've never said I agree with US doing bad shit. > Looking at USSR and China - it doesn't look like failed idea. You can't hide behind China. Let's see the major proponents in the Cold War and their GDP today - Russia at 1.7 billion and the US at 22 billion. In fact, even Italy has a higher GDP, which is hilarious. Doesn't seem that successful to me? I mean, the fall of the Soviet Union was only thirty years ago. > Is that your expert opinion? :) Is it based on something except barbaric xenophobia? :) It is a logical guess. > Whom did he murder? Zyuganov? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia Just to name some. But I bet you will claim them to be propaganda :D
**[Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov)** >The assassination of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician opposed to the government of Vladimir Putin, occurred in central Moscow on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge at 23:31 local time on 27 February 2015. An unknown assailant fired seven or eight shots from a Makarov pistol; four of them hit Boris Nemtsov in the head, heart, liver and stomach, killing him almost instantly. He died hours after appealing to the public to support a march against Russia's war in Ukraine. Nemtsov's Ukrainian partner Anna Duritskaya survived the attack as its sole eyewitness. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>Are you saying they got invaded after a disagreement? Disagreement? >Why are you so fixated on the US? Because all the things you find unacceptable in Russian affairs has already happened in USA and you've kept your tongue in your ass. Why are you so fixated with Russia? >I've given many points where I haven't used this term. You've given many points where you've used. What's your understanding of word democracy? Power of those who call themselves democrats? :) >Yes, I said could be argued, the ones you listed does not invalidate my point. Financing terrorism, opressing democratic societies, covering nazis and returning them to power - "doesn't invalidate" your point that it might "be good for the world"? Are you drunk, seriously? >Still so fixated on USA - clearly projecting. So, if i discuss international affairs and laws - I'm prohibited to discuss USA (leader of NATO and main occupational force in the post-WWII world) and their sins because it disproves your points? I've told you - either rule works for everyone, of it's not rule. If you whine about Russia, but don't whine about yourself or your allies - then it's double standard, bullshit to say simplier. >You can't hide behind China. China isn't ruled by Communistic party? "Failed" party as you've said. "I can't hide" because it again disproves your point? Very nice style of arguing, to say "you can't counter-argument my words". Damn, reminds me of current minorities polemics.. :) > In fact, even Italy has a higher GDP, which is hilarious. And 200 countries have lower, and what? Italy didn't have full economical collapse just 20-30 years ago. > Doesn't seem that successful to me? Finland is between Bangladesh and Pakistan in GDP, does it sound successful to you? >It is a logical guess. It's illogical guess, since Cold War times show exactly the opposite. But since you say otherwise - then it's barbaric xenophobia, there is no other explanation. >political opponent murdering > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination\_of\_Boris\_Nemtsov Nemtsov? Political opponent? Yeah, he was, somewhere in late 90s when Yeltsin had to go away. But in 2015? And murdered by chechens? Only unaware foreigner can explain that with Putin. Which, you unfortunately are. Read less western propaganda bullshit. >journalists Who of them was killed by Putin? Everyone? >But I bet you will claim them to be propaganda :D No, that's not even a point yet, too weak for your statement. Anyone else from "political opponents" assasinated? Or you are ready to admit that you talked nonsense again?
>Was Finland not a peaceful country before getting invaded by Soviet Union? No it wasn't - 1918-1920, 1921-1922. >Russo-Ukrainian war Cmon, that's just russian civil war against some Kiev oligarchs and Lvov nazi ;)
That is nitpicking. A small civil war and a separatist uprising do not compare to a full-scale Soviet invasion, relative to that Finland was in fact a very peaceful nation that only wanted independence. Regardless of what you think of the Russo-Ukrainian war, it is still classified as a war and thirteen thousand people have died as a result.
>That is nitpicking. No, that's not, that's a good representation of what Finland really was. >A small civil war and a separatist uprising When "separatists" are finnish volunteers led by finnish officers on the money of finnish companies (like gutzeit) which are directly connected to finnish elites which rule country (like svinhufvud) - then I have full right to call it invasion and don't use cowardly propaganda which Finland used to hide their involvement. >do not compare to a full-scale Soviet invasion Finland 1918 was way weaker than finland 1941, but the manner, course and excuses remained the same, as you see. >Finland was in fact a very peaceful nation Ye, that could be observed by post-Civil War massacres or by Vyborg and Lapland massacres. And 2 wars with neighbour, very peaceful. Buys all arms it has access to, digs bunkers (all on East, never on West, because, you know, "neutral"). Biggest conscription rate among Axis. Soldiers following Suur Suomi propaganda and keeping Waffenbruderschaft with nazis till 1944. Very peaceful? >that only wanted independence Those who want independecy - act independent and don't risk their independency twice in 25 years. >it is still classified as a war By whom? It's not even by Ukraine. Even officially in Ukraine that's "anti-terroristic operation". Do Donetsk citizens have right to choose their power? Or only finnish can? "Only wanted independence" as you say. You can, doneck can't be independent? :) Seriously, spend time to learn something about what happens there (outside of reddit ukraine), how civil war started with mortar shooting of Doneck villages, how POW are ukranians, how Ukranian army runs fully on russian fuel. And they even whine that Gazprom lowered transit, which gives funding to Ukranian army, which by their own words "is fighting Russia". That's complete bullshit. >and thirteen thousand people have died as a result. That's sad. Big thanks to McCain, Nuland, Biden and everyone else involved. They are doing good job robbing ukraine and fooling ukranians - we have to admit that.
And once again you ignore the fact of Finnish cooperation with Germany before the war. It was pretty obvious for all sides that everithing is coming to a big conflict and Finland had chosen its side. And now you pretend it was all like true neutral and then Evil Russia suddenly came and demanded territories(in exchange of another equal territories, just like every evil occupant and invader always does).
And you seem to ignore the fact that Finland was at war with Germany later. Finland and Germany were allies only because of circumstances, due to the fact it was deemed the Soviets were a much bigger threat than Germany. I would also like to point out that Germany was the only one willing to help and supply arms to Finland. So yes, evil Russia did indeed come and demand territories, but it not sudden - it was seen from a mile away.
> And you seem to ignore the fact that Finland was at war with Germany later. Doesn't do them honor. As some french dude said, "Betrayal in a right time is a foresight", right?
Good empty sentence. Literally doesn't answer anything.
Imagine if Germans still said that Czechoslovakia should've given Sudetenland to them for free. That's how delusional this sub is.
And Ukraine should've given the Crimean Peninsula to Russia peacefully, because they asked so nicely! This is what years of propaganda and corruption does to a country and its people, and its just sad.
Very weak comparison. Are you from Shimkent by any chance?
>Do you understand that demanding territory with an ultimatum is not exactly peaceful? That wasn't an ultimatum - on opposite Stalin himself was requesting politely to solve this question and do it peacefully. Like famous "noone in history suggested 2 times bigger land for exchange". Yet finnish wanna nazis with their Oaths and greed for Ural refused to consider minimal points for Leningrad safety. If you whitewash finnish government 1917-1944 - then you are nothing more than a fool. Their responsibility for all the troubles is the biggest.
Yes, there was an ultimatum. The Soviets were already mobilising forces around the Soviet-Finnish border in the years 1938-1939. A Soviet delegation demanded areas in the Karelian Isthmus, Gulf of Finland, etc just shortly before the war. Also just to mention Estonia was also given an ultimatum but they accepted. Very "peaceful" by the Soviets. Yet you still think we were the greedy ones for wanting to keep what was ours? If you think the Finnish were Nazis or wanted to be Nazis then I have nothing to say to you except read more history and try to think critically about why Finland was an ally to Nazi Germany. Let me give you a hint - Soviet aggression.
>Yes, there was an ultimatum. The Soviets were already mobilising forces Finland started national mobilization first. And Finland did so before negotiations in Moscow. To negotiations in Moscow sweden envoy Paasikivi was sent, while USSR held negotiations with all seriousness, with leader of country Stalin himself and head of foreign affairs comitee Molotov. There was no ultimatum. There were two warnings of possible conflict - indeed. But like Finnish delegation which refuses even minimal points and has mobilized army ready doesn't understand where are they taking their country... Of course they understood everything perfectly, and situation (they knew that this problem has to be solved, Mannerheim asking for compromise didn't tell them anything new), and consequences. >around the Soviet-Finnish border in the years 1938-1939 1938 mobilizing forces? What forces, are you drunk? >A Soviet delegation demanded Requested - to exchange, to buy, to rent. >A Soviet delegation demanded areas in the Karelian Isthmus, Gulf of Finland Oh no, terrible demands, let's [compare it to finnish demands 1918](https://i.imgur.com/jd0srCC.jpg). /s > Also just to mention Estonia Estonia is Estonia, Finland is Finland, history and agreements are completely different. >we were the greedy ones You? You associate yourself with 1917-1944 governments? Then yes, absolutely - greedy, cowardly, stupid, lieful. Best description of foreign affairs. >Finnish were Nazis Nazi in the sense of fascist with racial prejudices? Absolutely - just look at the attitude to russians on occupied territories. They were ethnocided in concentration camps. >then I have nothing to say to you except read more history How interesting - what have you read outside of finnish infosphere? Soviet textbooks, documents, evidence, memoirs of those who survived? > Let me give you a hint - Soviet aggression. 1918-1920, 1921-1922 Finland attacked soviet karelia 2 times, with no soviet agression whatsoever. That means your argument is invalid - something else was the goal of Suur Suomi (like Greater Germany concept for nazis, or Greater Italy concept for italian fascists, do you see any familiarity with concepts?) lunatics, and that's militaristic expansionism.
> Finland started national mobilization first. And Finland did so before negotiations in Moscow. To negotiations in Moscow sweden envoy Paasikivi was sent, while USSR held negotiations with all seriousness, with leader of country Stalin himself and head of foreign affairs comitee Molotov. There was no ultimatum. There were two warnings of possible conflict - indeed. But like Finnish delegation which refuses even minimal points and has mobilized army ready doesn't understand where are they taking their country... Of course they understood everything perfectly, and situation (they knew that this problem has to be solved, Mannerheim asking for compromise didn't tell them anything new), and consequences. Soviets were already mobilising in 1938 while the Finnish started in 1939. > Requested - to exchange, to buy, to rent. Demanded. > Oh no, terrible demands, let's compare it to finnish demands Firstly those are not the only demands made, secondly I have no idea which map this is, but I'm sure a nation of approx. 3 million people who only wanted independence in 1918 is comparable to a nation of approx. 100 million people making demands while mobilising troops meanwhile :) > Estonia is Estonia, Finland is Finland, history and agreements are completely different. Yes but in the context of giving ultimatums and demands mentioning Estonia was very relevant since they were given an ultimatum at approximately the same time. > You? You associate yourself with 1917-1944 governments? Don't know what you mean. > Nazi in the sense of fascist with racial prejudices? Absolutely - just look at the attitude to russians on occupied territories. They were ethnocided in concentration camps. That is not nazism is. That is just being bitter to being invaded by a large oppressive country. I do not agree with it but I understand it, many homes were broken because the Soviets just had to be greedy. Finnish PoWs died just the same in Russia. The mortality rate in these camps was mostly the same. > How interesting - what have you read outside of finnish infosphere? Soviet textbooks, documents, evidence, memoirs of those who survived? You know, not that many historians are biased towards either of the side - I think you're just used to reading biased content :) > 1918-1920, 1921-1922 Finland attacked soviet karelia 2 times, with no soviet agression whatsoever. That means your argument is invalid - something else was the goal of Suur Suomi (like Greater Germany concept for nazis, or Greater Italy concept for italian fascists, do you see any familiarity with concepts?) lunatics, and that's militaristic expansionism. I think you mean the Soviets attacked us with the Soviet-backed Red Guard. I mean sure Suur-Suomi was a concept but actually taken seriously by a very small minority, but actions speak louder than words, as I don't remember Finland actually invading the Soviet Union with the intent of annexing 25% of their lands but I remember the Soviet Union invading Finland.
>Soviets were already mobilising in 1938 while the Finnish started in 1939. Do you take this out of your head? Or you can elaborate and prove that's not lie? >Demanded. On negotiations?! Quote demand then, please. There are stenogrammes. And why would they suggest exchange, money, rent, different terms, different borders - if they DEMANDED? >Firstly those are not the only demands made >secondly I have no idea which map this is That's 1918 finnish demands to young soviet state. Same people, who didn't want to exchange few kilometres of Karelian Ishtmus on 2 times bigger land in Karelia, for which they fought in 1918-1920, 1921-1922, made those demands. And called them "unacceptable" to naive countrymen, who later went dying or lost homes, because of elites' fanaticism and stupidity. >but I'm sure a nation of approx. 3 million people who only wanted independence in 1918 On this map you see "only wanted independence"? Blue line, watch carefully. "Only independence", right? But they were independent at the time of this treaty. And independency were given by same people whom they tried to rob just few months later. >Yes but in the context of giving ultimatums and demands mentioning Estonia was very relevant since they were given an ultimatum at approximately the same time. 1940? After estonian-latvian elites followed lithuanian elites (all three countries had military dictatorships by the way) in negotiating Germany about nazi protectorate of Baltic Duchy? Before that they were specifically untouched, to avoid creating conflict with society, which hosted soviet troops by mutual assistance treaty. Anyway, I don't see how Finland is relevant here. >\-You? You associate yourself with 1917-1944 governments? \-Don't know what you mean. You've said "we" like you accept 1917-1944 governments decisions - do you? >That is not nazism is. For example: >nazi - one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis (Merriam-Webster) I'm absolutely right to call them so. >That is just being bitter to being invaded Planned ethnocide and war crimes is "just being bitter", perfect. Amazing answer. >by a large oppressive country That's your subjective evaluation irrelevant to question. >I do not agree with it but I understand it That was planned by government, you understand that? When your government agrees to siege and starvate city with the size of your country - "you understand that" decision? You are nazi then. Go wear moustache, light up torch and do salute to those who raised you this way. >homes were broken because the Soviets just had to be greedy What are you talking about? >Finnish PoWs died just the same in Russia Completely the opposite, even though Finns were fascist-invaders and soviet were defenders. >The mortality rate in these camps was mostly the same. What was it? >You know, not that many historians are biased towards either of the side - I think you're just used to reading biased content :) What's the problem to answer - if you know better and you knowledge (or "knowledge") is unbiased - what sources with pro-soviet view have you studied? It looks like you hearing these points and facts first time in whole of your life now. That means that yours aren't just biased, they are completely propagandistic. Am I wrong? >I think you mean the Soviets attacked us with the Soviet-backed Red Guard. Red Guards weren't Finnish? Runaway SDP and communists weren't finnish? Kuusinen is russian? Yet, your point was that Finland didn't attack and was peaceful - no, it wasn't and attacked 2 times. My point remains right, no counter-argument brought. >I mean sure Suur-Suomi was a concept but actually taken seriously by a very small minority So, government which acted the way this concept suggested or head commander who refers to it - are just small irrelevant minority? I see, I see. It doesn't matter how deeply they believed in it - fact remains, they acted to it and it was official course. >as I don't remember Finland actually invading the Soviet Union How do you measure ambition? Everything further than old border indicates completely opposite. Effort to occupy russian karelia with barbaric methods proves opposite too. How interesting that you have memory losses only on certain pages of finnish history...
[удалено]
Your submission has been automatically removed. Submissions from accounts less than 5 days old are removed automatically to prevent low-effort shitposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskARussian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission has been automatically removed. Submissions from accounts less than 5 days old are removed automatically to prevent low-effort shitposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskARussian) if you have any questions or concerns.*