6 ms·

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 thei

by 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

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.