History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Ridiculous. It was ours once, surely it must be ours now.
Did Stalin's leadership do more good or harm for his country during the Eastern Front
- Thread starter biar
- Start date
Ridiculous. It was ours once, surely it must be ours now.
Taking the Karelian Isthmus by diplomatic means would have been the first step in taking entire Finland, similarly to how establishing military bases in Baltic countries was the first step to absorbing them entirely.
The war wasn't fought for the Isthmus, it was fought for entire Finland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic
Please, stop arguing with red_elk, you make him seem reasonable.
Aren't "people a collection of individuals?
Finland unlike Baltic states would never allow to absorb itself without war, everybody understood that.
Besides that, the Isthmus was taken about in the same time when Baltic bases were established, but Finland remained independent. You need to back up this statement with something stronger than assertion.
When the war broke out, yes, there were such plans to take the opportunity.
Still, the main reason for war was the Isthmus and exactly when this goal was achieved, the Soviets agreed to cease fire and peace talk. Not before it was taken and not after that.
I seem reasonable for Yeekim, bad sign.
Yet, such a goal would've been a lot easier to accomplish, having control of the Isthmus and naval bases positioned deep inside Finnish Gulf.
The Soviets had suffered enough casualties taking it, also there was a risk of Franco-British intervention; so they decided to settle for what they had managed to get by that point.
EDIT: Will MRP be considered as "something stronger than assertion"?
I wouldn't be too worried yet...
Invasion of Norway and Sweden would also be much easier to accomplish, having control of Ishtmus.
Does it mean, USSR planned that?
There are Soviet documents indicating intention to gradually annex Baltic States in period of 1939-1941, without starting war. For Finland I haven't heard about such documents or other evidences.
Soviet pre-war diplomacy and politics are pretty well researched, you just need to read historians instead of fiction writers about this.
MRP doesn't say anything about Finland, as far as I remember.
You are probably talking about secret protocol, but it doesn't say anything about invasion either.
Read it.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
That's my logic in Civ, anyway. Hell, I'll consider something rightfully mine if my settler was on its way to that spot when the city was founded.
Yes, but a "people" as an ethnic group don't have any special entitlement to a geographic area, unless the people who own that area grant it to them. A group of ethnically similar people don't inherit property unless it is specifically willed to them by the individuals who owned it before.
If one wanted to play the game of "fill in the blanks and follow the statement to its conclusion" with the Poles, or indeed any people, then I'm sure we could do so. But I don't think we need to be so spiteful to see the point I'm making.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
How many wars had Finland and USSR had in period of 1917 - 1938 ???
BTW - do you count the Finnish Civil War of 1917 as a war "between USSR and Finland" ?! ROTFL and LOL.
Yalta, Potsdam and Nurenberg = places where Stalinist Russia was a judge in their own cause.
As for Helsinki - what exactly was agreed there regarding Kaliningrad Oblast? I've heard only about the non-recognition policy (presented there both by the USA, some other states, and all of NATO member states) of the forced incorporation of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) to Russia.
Brute force is not the determinant of justice.
I don't mind that it is part of Russia because nowadays it is inhabited by Russians (and I don't support deportations - even in just cause).
But I don't like that Russian nationalists and imperialists like you claim that it is justified that Russia helds the Königsberg / Twangste Region.
You have once again proven that you are a Russian imperialist-nationalist by writing this aggressive and provocative statement above.
Count yourself:
After the Soviet involvement in the Finnish Civil War in 1918, no formal peace treaty was signed. In 1918 and 1919, Finnish volunteer forces conducted two unsuccessful military incursions across the Russian border: the Viena and Aunus expeditions. In 1920, Finnish communists based in Soviet Russia attempted to assassinate the former Finnish White Guards Commander-in-Chief General CGE Mannerheim. On 14 October 1920, Finland and Soviet Russia signed the Treaty of Tartu, confirming the new FinnishSoviet border as the old border between the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland and Imperial Russia proper. In addition, Finland received Petsamo, with its ice-free harbour on the Arctic Ocean. Despite the signing of the treaty, relations between the two countries remained strained. The Finnish government allowed volunteers to cross the border to support the East Karelian Uprising in 1921, and Finnish communists in the Soviet Union continued to prepare for a revanche and staged a cross-border raid into Finland, called the "Pork mutiny", in 1922.[43]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Soviet.E2.80.93Finnish_relations_and_politics
I count it as essentially a Soviet-Finnish war.
Yeekim, what do you think about this poster?
Russophobes are being outraged? Good sign.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Tell this to all pre-contract, pre-state and pre-company societies in history.
Especially to societies which were organized in territorial communities such as tribes or clans (Slavic: zadruga).
So you are wrong, because it was the Finnish Civil War.
And majority of the pro-Communist (pro-Soviet) guys in that war were Finns, while majority of anti-Communist guys - were Swedes.
So Swedish people were anti-Soviet, while Finnish people were pro-Soviet - until Good Uncle Stalin invaded them in 1939.
And his invasion failed in such a pathetic way, that we can only clap our hands for the efficiency of Finnish resistance.
Once again Great Uncle Stalin showed his incompetence. Freedom won against Communist ignorance and sheer numbers.
Soviet intervention in the Finnish Civil War - is according to you the proof that Finland was "hostile" towards the USSR ??? !!!
OMG, is your reasoning really so pathethic, or are you simply lying on purpose? According to you the fact that Soviets invaded a country which was in the state of chaos and civil war, is a proof that this country was hostile to the Soviets ??? !!!
It is only a proof of Soviet aggressiveness, expansionism and imperalism of Soviet Russia.
What is legal base of existence of Poland state today?
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
The same as of existence of Germany and France, Denmark, Norway or Belgium.
You count an escapade of a volunteer force as an inter-state war?! This is simply silly and stupid reasoning.
It is like claiming that the USSR was at war with Spain in period 1936 - 1939, just because Soviet volunteers fought there...
Or perhaps you AS WELL count the Spanish Civil War as essentially the Soviet-Spanish War ??? Hahaha!!!
With Soviet intervention.
Both Finland and Poland lost their wars in 1939-1940
Your hysteria is funny, just continue this way.Soviet intervention in the Finnish Civil War - is according to you the proof that Finland was "hostile" towards the USSR ??? !!!
OMG, is your reasoning really so pathethic, or are you simply lying on purpose? According to you the fact that Soviets invaded a country which was in the state of chaos and civil war, is a proof that this country was hostile to the Soviets ??? !!!
It is only a proof of Soviet aggressiveness, expansionism and imperalism of Soviet Russia.
It is like claiming that the USSR was at war with Spain in period 1936 - 1939, just because Soviet volunteers fought there...
Or perhaps you AS WELL count the Spanish Civil War as essentially the Soviet-Spanish War ??? Hahaha!!!
Read again what I was proving.
Which is?
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
The Spanish Civil War was also with Soviet intervention... But you don't call it the Soviet-Spanish War...
So was the Korean War (against the USA). But you don't describe it as a Soviet-American War...
Then why do you describe the Finnish Civil War as the Soviet-Finnish War? ...
The Gracious Will of the Great Uncle and Our Mighty Saviour the Merciful and Inherently Good Joseph Stalin.
The Forger and The Destroyer of States and Nations, The Guardian Angel of Europe, Joseph Stalin.
Heil Joseph. Heil Joseph. Praise be Joseph.
===================
Are you happy now?
Finland lost the Winter War only "on paper" - and only on "Soviet paper", i.e. according to Soviet propaganda. In reality in the immediate aftermatch of the Winter War, press and public opinion in entire Europe was describing that war as an epic failure of Joseph Stalin and his army.
In reality what Finland did was a great success, considering the odds they were facing.
The Winter War was not Heraclea or Asculum - but Beneventum for Stalin. 126,000 dead compared to 22,000 Finns, and nearly nothing gained.
Soviet incompetence and ineptness fully revealed. And later confirmed in the early stages of Barbarossa.
Domen, Russia has exactly the same rights to possess Kaliningrad district, as Poland has rights to possess its current territory.
Yes, you are entertaining me very well.Heil Joseph. Heil Joseph. Praise be Joseph.
Are you happy now?
I'm just dropping this general piece of advice here: dismissing historical evidence based on one's own ignorance is not good argumentation.
In short: agreement is made, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are to belong to USSR. Later they all are invaded, coincidentally I'm sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloto...2C_Poland.2C_the_Baltic_States_and_Bessarabiawiki said:
In short: agreement is made, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are to belong to USSR. Later they all are invaded, coincidentally I'm sure.
Soviet sphere of influence.
Just a reminder, in Middle Ages Spain and Portugal divided whole planet to their spheres of influence.
Similar threads
