3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - berntb 13y ago
      Your link does not support your claim that little Finland was planning an invasion of Soviet. Only that Soviet claimed to feel threatened(!) and faked a Finnish artillery attack (just like the Nazis did with Poland, btw) so they could declare war. Sorry, you're just a dishonest apologet for one of the worst dictatorships in history or a troll.
      - gdy 13y ago
        Oh, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunus_expedition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunus_expedition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat Moreover, Finland right-wing government was supported by Germany in 1918 and prospect of Finland allying itself with German once again seems quite probable. I can only repeat myself: 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 this because I don't see any alternative scenarios not leading to bigger casualties on part of Russia.
        berntb 13y ago
        So you argue that because Finland wanted a part of Finnish-speaking area in the previous world war, they would start a war with a super power with two factors of ten larger population twenty years later? That is just ridiculous. Finland built defensive lines after WW I, not attack weapons like tanks. And so on.

by berntb 13y ago

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.
  - berntb 13y ago
    Your link does not support your claim that little Finland was planning an invasion of Soviet. Only that Soviet claimed to feel threatened(!) and faked a Finnish artillery attack (just like the Nazis did with Poland, btw) so they could declare war. Sorry, you're just a dishonest apologet for one of the worst dictatorships in history or a troll.
    - gdy 13y ago
      Oh, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunus_expedition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunus_expedition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat Moreover, Finland right-wing government was supported by Germany in 1918 and prospect of Finland allying itself with German once again seems quite probable. I can only repeat myself: 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 this because I don't see any alternative scenarios not leading to bigger casualties on part of Russia.
      - berntb 13y ago
        So you argue that because Finland wanted a part of Finnish-speaking area in the previous world war, they would start a war with a super power with two factors of ten larger population twenty years later? That is just ridiculous. Finland built defensive lines after WW I, not attack weapons like tanks. And so on.