6 ms·

> Finland got de-Finlandized at last. What does this even mean?

by chinathrow 4y ago

dantyti 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
tcard 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
diimdeep 4y ago
[flagged]
- Convolutional 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - spookie 4y ago
    Russia didn't take over Finland because it couldn't. It wasn't for a lack of will. They committed 450k to 750k of their man and lost 300k of them. If that isn't defeat, I don't know what is.
    - Convolutional 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        Russia never wanted to take over Finland, that's why they created a puppet government in Terijoki that claimed Helsinki as its capital.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - spookie 4y ago
        In the battle of Stalingrad they were the ones being attacked. Big difference.
        leereeves 4y ago
        Yes, a difference of will. They were simply willing to fight much harder to defend Stalingrad than to invade Finland.
        spookie 4y ago
        If we were to follow that mindset, then no country has ever truly lost a war. They simply lacked the will to win. They could do it anytime. They just chose not to. You truly believe this? Remarkable.
        leereeves 4y ago
        Of course that's not true. Nations can run out of at least three things required to wage war: resources, people, or will. And the Soviets were nowhere near running out of resources or people at the end of the Winter War, as shown by their ability to defeat a much more powerful enemy a few years later.
        spookie 4y ago
        Yes, we all know Nazi Germany was only fighting against the Soviets between '40-'45. Truly, the use of U.S. and U.K. bombers that incapacitated Berlin's war machinery production never happened. The western side of the war was dealt with promptly, leaving only in the east, the Soviets to repent the Nazis. It was the pure will of the Soviets which led them to their, and only their victory. I don't even know what to say. It must have been a lack of will, surely. /s (edit) Look, I know what you're trying to say. But if we put it that way, we're implying that they could've surpassed the will of the Finns in some way, if they wanted to. And I firmly believe that to not have been the case.
- spookie 4y ago
  Yes, we all know that this move was played out by those sneaky Americans. 4D chess that invasion of Ukraine /s
  - seanw444 4y ago
    A good politician never lets a catastrophe go to waste. U.S. may not have purposely caused the invasion of Ukraine, but it's certainly a useful tool to rake in those NATO holdouts.
    - spookie 4y ago
      The only one to blame for the invasion, or the fact that new countries are joining NATO is Putin, and his political colleagues. Making it seem as if Finland is but a vassal for the U.S. for this move is disingenuous at best. After Georgia, Crimea, and now the rest of Ukraine, anyone would make such a decision. Out of their own will. In order to survive.

> Finland got de-Finlandized at last. What does this even mean?

dantyti 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

tcard 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

diimdeep 4y ago

[flagged]

Convolutional 4y ago
[flagged]
- spookie 4y ago
  Russia didn't take over Finland because it couldn't. It wasn't for a lack of will. They committed 450k to 750k of their man and lost 300k of them. If that isn't defeat, I don't know what is.
  - Convolutional 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      Russia never wanted to take over Finland, that's why they created a puppet government in Terijoki that claimed Helsinki as its capital.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - spookie 4y ago
      In the battle of Stalingrad they were the ones being attacked. Big difference.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        Yes, a difference of will. They were simply willing to fight much harder to defend Stalingrad than to invade Finland.
        spookie 4y ago
        If we were to follow that mindset, then no country has ever truly lost a war. They simply lacked the will to win. They could do it anytime. They just chose not to. You truly believe this? Remarkable.
        leereeves 4y ago
        Of course that's not true. Nations can run out of at least three things required to wage war: resources, people, or will. And the Soviets were nowhere near running out of resources or people at the end of the Winter War, as shown by their ability to defeat a much more powerful enemy a few years later.
        spookie 4y ago
        Yes, we all know Nazi Germany was only fighting against the Soviets between '40-'45. Truly, the use of U.S. and U.K. bombers that incapacitated Berlin's war machinery production never happened. The western side of the war was dealt with promptly, leaving only in the east, the Soviets to repent the Nazis. It was the pure will of the Soviets which led them to their, and only their victory. I don't even know what to say. It must have been a lack of will, surely. /s (edit) Look, I know what you're trying to say. But if we put it that way, we're implying that they could've surpassed the will of the Finns in some way, if they wanted to. And I firmly believe that to not have been the case.
spookie 4y ago
Yes, we all know that this move was played out by those sneaky Americans. 4D chess that invasion of Ukraine /s
- seanw444 4y ago
  A good politician never lets a catastrophe go to waste. U.S. may not have purposely caused the invasion of Ukraine, but it's certainly a useful tool to rake in those NATO holdouts.
  - spookie 4y ago
    The only one to blame for the invasion, or the fact that new countries are joining NATO is Putin, and his political colleagues. Making it seem as if Finland is but a vassal for the U.S. for this move is disingenuous at best. After Georgia, Crimea, and now the rest of Ukraine, anyone would make such a decision. Out of their own will. In order to survive.