6 ms·

You didn't touch the other expansions -- Finland etc. So you seriously argue that it is a moral defense to invade countries and do anything, if it makes strate

by berntb 13y ago

You didn't touch the other expansions -- Finland etc. So you seriously argue that it is a moral defense to invade countries and do anything, if it makes strategic sense. And you yourself decide how threatened you are... with a review generations later. Shudder. You're really making a very, very good argument for joining NATO before we find out how non-democratic Russia will end up being. :-( Considering art/math/etc, I would never call Russians of today "barbaric" so no straw man attacks please. (I implied that you spread typical propaganda to create external enemies for a thieving junta. That is scary from a big neighbor.) And lots of people were murdered, raped, tortured and in general got their lives destroyed/enslaved by Soviet outside Soviet far after the WW, so don't play the loss card from 70+ years ago after one dictator turned on another. Especially when the Soviet dictator got more citizens killed than the war (hunger, shootings, etc). I really hope the poor Russian population don't get another 1984. :-(

gdy 13y ago
Sure, Finland too) Do you shudder when you think about democratic USA invading Iraq in order to prevent Saddam from passing WMD to terrorists sometime in the future? I'm afraid right now it is you who is creating an external enemy (out of modern Russia). Can't argue about 'thieving' part, though ;) How big is your 'lots' compared to a single Nazi concentration camp? Anyway, giving up the buffer countries on the western border after a devasting war had just ended would've been stupid from the strategic point of view.
- berntb 13y ago
  My point was that Finland etc wasn't covered in your reference to excuse Soviet for ignoring all international law. But you knew that. But you didn't touch my other points either, so I guess that wasn't so bad. >> How big is your 'lots' compared to a single Nazi concentration camp? So you say "Soviet was ok, because its enslavement, murders, theft etc in East Europe was less bad then the nazi ockupation before." You really keep high standards.... :-) Etc. You argue crazier for every comment, I will write you off as a troll.
  - gdy 13y ago
    Finland border was too close to Leningrad, as you might know, and the same logic applied there. The international law didn't defend any country from Nazi occupation and only few armies did. Is it your argument that a country should obey international law, be occupied by Nazi's, get its population decimated in order to look good 70 years later? If not then what is it? How do you think things would have turned out if Nazi's offence had been just a bit faster? Would have the USSR lost Moscow and Leningrad? Would have Germany got access to the Caucasus oil? Ok, let's compare your 'lots' to a number of people killed in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. The upper bound for it was 600000 in 2006[1]. By now it is much more, because violence there haven't stopped so far. In case you are wondering, my position is that 1917's revolution was a tragedy and Russia would've been better off if it didn't happen, Stalin is a criminal etc. But the logic of moving border westward have nothing to do with it because I don't see any alternative scenarios not leading to bigger casualties on part of Russia. BTW, you insistence on rightness of ignoring reality of German militarization only 20 years after the WW1 looks, well, strange too. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casu...
    - berntb 13y ago
      That is just not honest. Finland was Soviet's, according to Ribentroff-Molotov. Soviet tried to invade. Far before Soviet was surprised by the attack from their Nazi allies, so you can't use that as motivation. Without Soviet's attack, Finland wouldn't have been in the war (read up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me). It is just not defensible, even with your tolerance for preepmtive invasions. I hope you troll when you argue it is correct to invade and enslave peaceful democracies, because a junta feels threatened... If you are paid to increase NATO supporters, you do a good job. (I only read the first sentence, where you for the third time in a row ignored what I wrote re Finland and other areas not covered in your reference.)
      - gdy 13y ago
        You should read about Russia-Finland relations before WW2, there wasn't big chance of Finland staying neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Finland_during_World_War_II#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Finland_dur... As for the rest of my comment, I assume you just don't want to start thinking about these questions lest they cause cognitive dissonance and endanger your precious fixed point of view.

by berntb 13y ago

gdy 13y ago

Sure, Finland too) Do you shudder when you think about democratic USA invading Iraq in order to prevent Saddam from passing WMD to terrorists sometime in the future? I'm afraid right now it is you who is creating an external enemy (out of modern Russia). Can't argue about 'thieving' part, though ;) How big is your 'lots' compared to a single Nazi concentration camp? Anyway, giving up the buffer countries on the western border after a devasting war had just ended would've been stupid from the strategic point of view.

berntb 13y ago
My point was that Finland etc wasn't covered in your reference to excuse Soviet for ignoring all international law. But you knew that. But you didn't touch my other points either, so I guess that wasn't so bad. >> How big is your 'lots' compared to a single Nazi concentration camp? So you say "Soviet was ok, because its enslavement, murders, theft etc in East Europe was less bad then the nazi ockupation before." You really keep high standards.... :-) Etc. You argue crazier for every comment, I will write you off as a troll.
- gdy 13y ago
  Finland border was too close to Leningrad, as you might know, and the same logic applied there. The international law didn't defend any country from Nazi occupation and only few armies did. Is it your argument that a country should obey international law, be occupied by Nazi's, get its population decimated in order to look good 70 years later? If not then what is it? How do you think things would have turned out if Nazi's offence had been just a bit faster? Would have the USSR lost Moscow and Leningrad? Would have Germany got access to the Caucasus oil? Ok, let's compare your 'lots' to a number of people killed in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. The upper bound for it was 600000 in 2006[1]. By now it is much more, because violence there haven't stopped so far. In case you are wondering, my position is that 1917's revolution was a tragedy and Russia would've been better off if it didn't happen, Stalin is a criminal etc. But the logic of moving border westward have nothing to do with it because I don't see any alternative scenarios not leading to bigger casualties on part of Russia. BTW, you insistence on rightness of ignoring reality of German militarization only 20 years after the WW1 looks, well, strange too. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casu...
  - berntb 13y ago
    That is just not honest. Finland was Soviet's, according to Ribentroff-Molotov. Soviet tried to invade. Far before Soviet was surprised by the attack from their Nazi allies, so you can't use that as motivation. Without Soviet's attack, Finland wouldn't have been in the war (read up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me). It is just not defensible, even with your tolerance for preepmtive invasions. I hope you troll when you argue it is correct to invade and enslave peaceful democracies, because a junta feels threatened... If you are paid to increase NATO supporters, you do a good job. (I only read the first sentence, where you for the third time in a row ignored what I wrote re Finland and other areas not covered in your reference.)
    - gdy 13y ago
      You should read about Russia-Finland relations before WW2, there wasn't big chance of Finland staying neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Finland_during_World_War_II#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Finland_dur... As for the rest of my comment, I assume you just don't want to start thinking about these questions lest they cause cognitive dissonance and endanger your precious fixed point of view.