USSR Like it or not?

[Verbose]

I said, no, you didn't need to agree.
It was so much better to side with this guy:

and help him to starve million of Leningrad civilians to death.

Considering the Finns were first jumped by this guy...

...which was done after he had signed a frikkin treaty, dividing a number of soverign states up between them, Finland included, with this guy...

...well, as the Finnish President at the time, Risto Ryti, put it, they would make a pact with the devil if that looked like the best chance of making Finland safe.

You're trying to sell the line that the Finns had anything but crappy options in WWII, mostly forced upon it by the Soviet Union. That's one tough sale. There's too much reality stacked against it.

Looking at the aftermath of WWII, considering Finland was the only minor in the Soviet neighbourhood that managed to avoid being turned into a "satellite state", retaining the democratic political and economic system of their choice, the conclusion would be that the Finns got it right vis à vis the Soviet Union (and Nazi Germany, which it fought from 1944), after a RARE exception to the usual norm, that of having been granted terms for peace by the Soviet Union:

Fight early, fight hard, fight well, fight often.

 

[Verbose]

Everyone has excuse.

And apparently none revel in theirs quite as much as certain Russians.

 

[red_elk]

Considering the Finns were first jumped by this guy...
...which was done after he had signed a frikkin treaty, dividing a number of soverign states up between them, Finland included, with this guy...

I several times condemned those Soviet actions. Does anybody want to condemn Finnish actions? Do you think, military cooperation with Hitler and participating in attack against USSR was justified?

...well, as the Finnish President at the time, Risto Ryti, put it, they would make a pact with the devil if that looked like the best chance of making Finland safe.

And he made it.
It was him who wanted to create "Greater Finland"?

You're trying to sell the line that the Finns had anything but crappy options in WWII, mostly forced upon it by the Soviet Union. That's one tough sale. There's too much reality stacked against it.

I don't want to sell anything. Their "crappy option" meant death for thousands of Soviet people.

 

[Sharwood]

I several times condemned those Soviet actions. Does anybody want to condemn Finnish actions? Do you think, military cooperation with Hitler and participating in attack against USSR was justified?

Nobody should condemn Finnish actions, because they most certainly were justified. Unpleasant, yes, and the Finns themselves admitted as much, but when confronted with an enemy you can't defeat on your own it is necessary to make friends with a strong ally, even if that ally is as despicable as your enemy. National survival was at stake, and unlike every other Eastern European state, excepting Yugoslavia, Finland remained free.

And he made it.
It was him who wanted to create "Greater Finland"?

Calling Hitler the devil, eh? You are aware that Churchill made that very same analogy regarding Stalin? "If Hitler invaded Hell, I should ally with the devil." That was his justificaton for supporting the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany.

And this "Greater Finland" included only the territory Russia took from Finland. The Finns advanced further to create a more defensible perimetre, but had peace been made they would withdraw behind their borders. Which they did.

I don't want to sell anything. Their "crappy option" meant death for thousands of Soviet people.

No, you're selling a rather sizable quantity of Russian bullcrap. I've heard it's terrible for crops.

And if they had chosen any other option, I repeat, any other option at all, Finland would either be annexed or turned into a puppet-state by the USSR. Finland did what had to be done for their own survival.

Look at it this way. Jeffrey Dahmer's coming to kill you, and Ted Bundy jumps in front of him and starts fighting him. Dahmer's stronger, bigger, and has threatened you before. You know Bundy can't be trusted, but Dahmer's the bigger threat. What do you do? If you have any sense, you help Bundy fight Dahmer just long enough for them to kill each other. As Finland did.

 

[red_elk]

Nobody should condemn Finnish actions, because they most certainly were justified.

They took part in blockade of Leningrad which killed 1 million of civilians only, not counting military casualties. Is it justified?

Unpleasant, yes, and the Finns themselves admitted as much, but when confronted with an enemy you can't defeat on your own it is necessary to make friends with a strong ally, even if that ally is as despicable as your enemy. National survival was at stake, and unlike every other Eastern European state, excepting Yugoslavia, Finland remained free.

National survival was at stake? On this basis, all Stalin's actions before and during war can be justified. You condemn defensive pact between USSR and Germany, but Finnish-German alliance was justified? I see.

Calling Hitler the devil, eh?

You are not agree?

And this "Greater Finland" included only the territory Russia took from Finland.

Unintentional mistake, again? Or ignorance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Finland

The Finns advanced further to create a more defensible perimetre,

No, the Soviets advanced to Finnish territory in 1939-1940 to create more defensible perimeter around Leningrad

but had peace been made they would withdraw behind their borders. Which they did.

They withdrew from Soviet territory in 1944, or were just kicked out?

 

[Sharwood]

They took part in blockade of Leningrad which killed 1 million of civilians only, not counting military casualties. Is it justified?

Yes, due to the strategic importance of the city. You'll note that they refused to deliver the coup de grace or cut the Murmansk railroad, despite German requests.

National survival was at stake? On this basis, all Stalin's actions before and during war can be justified. You condemn defensive pact between USSR and Germany, but Finnish-German alliance was justified? I see.

Stalin's actions during WWII which were taken for the survival of the USSR were justified. Murdering POWs and invading neutral states - which Finland was in the Winter War, and which the Baltics were until he invaded them - are not justified.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a defensive pact, it was a military alliance for the division of Eastern Europe. The Finnish-German alliance, on the other hand, genuinely was a defensive arrangement by the Finns, although it was an offensive one on Germany's side.

You are not agree?

Nice of you to completely ignore my point. If Hitler is the devil, then so is Stalin. The two are directly comparable. If anything, Stalin's closer to Satan, considering he was smart enough to survive and remain in power, which Hitler wasn't. I've never heard anyone accuse Satannish of stupidity.

Unintentional mistake, again? Or ignorance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Finland

Most of those territories were taken from Finland by the USSR in the Winter War. Those that weren't could not justifiably be taken from the USSR, except perhaps in the case of plebiscites - not rigged plebiscites, as were held in the Baltics. Regardless, while this may have been the right-wing dream in Finland, it was not Finnish wartime policy, despite what you may like to believe.

Actually, looking at that map again, it includes territory which was part of Finland until after the Continuation War, so either you're ignorant on this subject, or you're lying to me. How could Finland gain territory by invading the USSR that it already had?

No, the Soviets advanced to Finnish territory in 1939-1940 to create more defensible perimeter around Leningrad

No, they invaded a sovereign nation after offering an exchange of territory, which the Finns refused, as was their right. Such a territorial exchange was not in their interest, and they'd seen what happened to the last group of nations who allowed themselves to be pushed around by the Soviets - the Balitc States. Finland had no desire to repeat the process.

The Soviets illegally invaded Finland in an act of aggression. Leningrad already had the perfect buffer zone. Its name was Finland, a neutral nation recognised by the only possible enemy - Germany - as being within Russia's sphere of influence. If you hadn't invaded them, you never would have faced a counter-invasion from their territory a year later.

They withdrew from Soviet territory in 1944, or were just kicked out?

They withdrew. Finnish troops were still in Russian territory when the armistice was signed, and they assisted in clearing the Nazis from said territory afterwards.

And I notice you also ignored the latter part of my post, because if you didn't do so you would have to face the fact that what Finland did was necessary for its own survival, which is something you don't want to face, having likely been indoctrinated to ignore uncomfortable facts like your own nation's completely unjustifiable past aggression.

 

[red_elk]

Yes, due to the strategic importance of the city. You'll note that they refused to deliver the coup de grace or cut the Murmansk railroad, despite German requests.

Stalin's actions during WWII which were taken for the survival of the USSR were justified. Murdering POWs and invading neutral states - which Finland was in the Winter War, and which the Baltics were until he invaded them - are not justified.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a defensive pact, it was a military alliance for the division of Eastern Europe. The Finnish-German alliance, on the other hand, genuinely was a defensive arrangement by the Finns, although it was an offensive one on Germany's side.

If you think that murder of million civilians is justified due to "strategic importance of the city", I take my words back - all war and pre-war Stalin's actions are justified, including attack to Finland and murder of Polish POWs. They were far more dangerous to USSR than thousands of Leningrad women and children to Finland.

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling the victims of Stalin. Pls watch it. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Most of those territories were taken from Finland by the USSR in the Winter War. Those that weren't could not justifiably be taken from the USSR, except perhaps in the case of plebiscites - not rigged plebiscites, as were held in the Baltics. Regardless, while this may have been the right-wing dream in Finland, it was not Finnish wartime policy, despite what you may like to believe.

Actually, looking at that map again, it includes territory which was part of Finland until after the Continuation War, so either you're ignorant on this subject, or you're lying to me. How could Finland gain territory by invading the USSR that it already had?

Link is under the picture.

No, they invaded a sovereign nation after offering an exchange of territory, which the Finns refused, as was their right. Such a territorial exchange was not in their interest, and they'd seen what happened to the last group of nations who allowed themselves to be pushed around by the Soviets - the Balitc States. Finland had no desire to repeat the process.

The Soviets illegally invaded Finland in an act of aggression. Leningrad already had the perfect buffer zone. Its name was Finland, a neutral nation recognised by the only possible enemy - Germany - as being within Russia's sphere of influence. If you hadn't invaded them, you never would have faced a counter-invasion from their territory a year later.

It was as illegal as later Finnish attack to USSR. And siege of Leningrad was a crime which overshadowed all of Soviet actions.

Moderator Action: See above. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

They withdrew. Finnish troops were still in Russian territory when the armistice was signed, and they assisted in clearing the Nazis from said territory afterwards.

And I notice you also ignored the latter part of my post, because if you didn't do so you would have to face the fact that what Finland did was necessary for its own survival, which is something you don't want to face, having likely been indoctrinated to ignore uncomfortable facts like your own nation's completely unjustifiable past aggression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war

With new supplies from Germany, the Finnish army was able to halt the Soviet advance in early July 1944. At this point, Finnish forces had retreated about one hundred kilometres bringing them to approximately the same line of defence they had held at the end of the Winter War...
An armistice between the Soviet Union and Finland was signed in Moscow on 19 September. Finland had to make many concessions: the Soviet Union regained the borders of 1940, with the addition of the Petsamo area (now Pechengsky District, Russia); the Porkkala peninsula (adjacent to Helsinki) was leased to the USSR as a naval base for fifty years and transit rights were granted; Finland's army was to be demobilized with haste, and Finland was required to expel all German troops from its territory within 14 days.

So, they were kicked out from Soviet territory, and were forced to withdraw from territories which no longer belong to them. Absolutely rightfully.

 

[Eskel]

all war and pre-war Stalin's actions are justified, including attack to Finland and murder of Polish POWs. They were far more dangerous to USSR than thousands of Leningrad women and children to Finland.

Well, we have here a nice sample of genocide and war crimes glorification.
It is pure nonsense to discuss with this guy.
I will ask for moderator action.

 

[Sharwood]

If you think that murder of million civilians is justified due to "strategic importance of the city", I take my words back - all war and pre-war Stalin's actions are justified, including attack to Finland and murder of Polish POWs. They were far more dangerous to USSR than thousands of Leningrad women and children to Finland.

The city had to be taken. It was that strategically important. The only way for Germany to do that with the materials at hand was through a blockade. You'll note that Finland refused to actually attack the city, despite German demands, which would have resulted in far more deaths.

A blockade in wartime hardly qualifies as murder. There's even a phrase for it: collateral damage. Now, if the Finns killed POWs and participated in the execution of civilians, those actions would be classified as murder, and damn sure unjustified.

Link is under the picture.

I noticed that, but I hadn't read the caption beneath the map yet. Still, the claim that Finland attacked Russia seeking a Greater Finland, which included Estonia, is quite possibly the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous arguments you've made in this thread.

It was as illegal as later Finnish attack to USSR. And siege of Leningrad was a crime which overshadowed all of Soviet actions.

You really don't know your history, do you? You've been indoctrinated that badly? The Continuation War began shortly after Barbarossa started, when the USSR launched another unprovoked attack on Finland , which was attempting to remain neutral. This attack consisted of bombing raids and artillery bombardment.The Finns had no choice but to enter the war, and still refused to take Leningrad or cut the Murmansk railroad, both of which could have crushed the USSR. Especially the latter. Murmansk goes down, Moscow is very likely to fall.

And the idea that the Seige of Leningrad pales in comparison to Soviet actions against Finland is laughable. Because the Finns prosecuted the war with more skill than the Soviets, and blockade a perfectly acceptable military target - you are aware that Leningrad was a major military centre, being such a great historian, yes? - they've committed an unspeakable crime? And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you meant only Soviet actions vis a vis Finland. Because if not, you yourself are a monster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war

So, they were kicked out from Soviet territory, and were forced to withdraw from territories which no longer belong to them. Absolutely rightfully.

Nice cut and paste job. Why don't you post the parts that don't support you? For that matter, what you posted isn't exactly supportive anyway.

Finnish troops were still in Russian territory at the time of the armistice. That's a fact. Not all Finnish troops were, some had been pushed back into Finland itself. But some were still in Russia, as I stated. That's a win for me.

And no, it was not "absolutely rightfully." What would have been right, by which I assume you mean both moral and legal, would be for the USSR to return the territories it illegally stole from Finland four years earlier.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I think this thread has pretty much run its course.

Closed for review.