So I would imagine the official narrative coming from the Kremlin is that Russia did not stage the shelling on it's own village before the Winter war and it was totally Finland's fault.
So with that out of the way, is Ukraine Western? Well since they are not part of NATO and they are not obligated to be defended by the USA by any other treaty I would say they are part of the East.
Therefore if Russia truly was attacked by Ukraine (which it wasn't) they were not attacked by the West but rather just another part of the East.
This is Eastern on Eastern violence plain and simple.
Please don't tell me you believe in the Rothschild conspiracy and that somehow Nazi Germany was a useful tool/puppet for either the British or Americans (depending on which version of the conspiracy one subscribes to).
Strange.
I live in a Western nation and I have no recollection of Denmark attacking the USSR and taking part in murdering 27 Million people in WW2, as you insinuate.
I think the Norwegians, Swedes, Dutch, Belgians, French, Canadians and so on, have a similar reaction.
I specifically wrote "during" to note that attack of the Western country and their allies on the USSR did not happen at the very beginning of WW2. Yet, you picked on that.
As for definition, you are welcome to provide one which would include Finland, but exclude Germany.
I specifically wrote "during" to note that attack of the Western country and their allies on the USSR did not happen at the very beginning of WW2. Yet, you picked on that.
USSR western neigbours at that time were Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Romania. USSR did not like them, so cooperated with nazis to subjugate them. Romania lost only Bessarabia, Finland Karelia... Baltics and Poland were occupied.¨
edt: Lithuania wasnt direct neigbour until the occupation of Poland.
I specifically wrote "during" to note that attack of the Western country and their allies on the USSR did not happen at the very beginning of WW2. Yet, you picked on that.
As for definition, you are welcome to provide one which would include Finland, but exclude Germany.
I'm not the one claiming 'the West' to be anything so maybe it's you who should come up with a definition and if I'll accept that for the case then we'll have some common ground.
The SU didn't give much time for anyone else to attack first. I'm so sorry we lacked energy in this department.
I gave that date because before that the SU was the one who attacked multiple countries and if you think those were part of WW2 then there's no valid reason to complain about own casualties in wars you've started.
On the other hand if the SU only had Special Military Operations before German attack on 22nd and that was the starting point of WW2 you could say that when Finland declared war on 25th you got attacked by 'the West' causing some loss of life. On the other hand it was the countries (US & UK) usually seen as 'the West' helping to keep the SU alive.
No wars started on 21st nor it's reasonable to assume that existing conflicts turned into a WW on 21st without any escalations.
You could've just said that Germany attacked the USSR during WW2 and that resulted 27 million dead Russians and we could've saved time & energy by not having this conversation. Then we could've argued the number & definition of 'murder' during war on another thread as this seems off topic.
I specifically wrote "during" to note that attack of the Western country and their allies on the USSR did not happen at the very beginning of WW2. Yet, you picked on that.
As for definition, you are welcome to provide one which would include Finland, but exclude Germany.
The Soviets did have allies back in The Great Patriotic War - the US, the UK and its Commonwealth allies, and free contingents from France, Belgium, Holland, Poland, Czechs, etc. The Allies, primarily the US sent tons of supplies, weapons, radios, trucks etc. to the Soviets. Not to mention fighting Nazi Germany. In fact, the UK started fighting Nazis in September 1939, as did France. So...the "West" attacked Russia????
I'm not the one claiming 'the West' to be anything so maybe it's you who should come up with a definition and if I'll accept that for the case then we'll have some common ground.
You are the one who chimed in the conversation claiming that my statement is inaccurate though. And now want me to provide definition which you will may be accept, without even explaining what you meant. I supposed that you disagree that Germany was part of the West.[/QUOTE]
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.