Winter War

Now to address your (and others) claims that heroism is a bunch of apathetic goody two shoed old men running around: what are you basing this on? Your opinions are that of the minority and I think that the burden of proof falls on your heads. Many animals look up to the baddest and toughest of their species; while the wise bear may avoid fights and extend his own life, he will woefully find that his fellow females are unimpressed. While you are all entitled to your own ideals, I find it most unpleasent to hear you define my heroes as zeroes - I would compare it to a hippy calling me and 50 of my friends ******** because we choose to eat meat and not grass flavoured tofu.
As if we were bears!:lol:
 
The Soviets tended to be correct in their assumptions that local Communists would assist - or at least not oppose - them though, in most countries. In there any particular reason why Finland was different? Or am I completely off in general? Cheezy might be the best guy to answer this.

Finland had never been a stronghold for the communists, and identified itself less with Russia than many other nations; it had been controlled for less than 200 years, the population were Finns and not Slavs, and spoke a Finnic language not a Slavic one. Finland's unique relationship with the Imperial Russian government had led to their exemption from wartime draft, so they did not have a large war-weary, radicalized segment of their population as much of the rest of the country did, and thus leftists did not enjoy widespread support even before February 1917. Finland was one of the first to declare for the Petrograd Soviet in October, but the local soviets were overthrown by nationalist forces who mustered a rather strong army. With more concerns elsewhere, Finland enjoyed de facto independence from early 1918-on, and was the first of only a few countries that Sovnarkom recognized as being independent and not simply controlled by counterrevolutionary forces. So it should really be no surprise to anyone that the Reds attempted to take back Finland and install their long-ousted soviets; the possibility of internal socialist revolt was minimal, because they were 1. few in number, and 2. not likely to grow substantially because the idea of going socialist was automatically associated with being pro-Russian, whether their intent was such or not.
 
Finland had never been a stronghold for the communists, and identified itself less with Russia than many other nations; it had been controlled for less than 200 years, the population were Finns and not Slavs, and spoke a Finnic language not a Slavic one. Finland's unique relationship with the Imperial Russian government had led to their exemption from wartime draft, so they did not have a large war-weary, radicalized segment of their population as much of the rest of the country did, and thus leftists did not enjoy widespread support even before February 1917. Finland was one of the first to declare for the Petrograd Soviet in October, but the local soviets were overthrown by nationalist forces who mustered a rather strong army. With more concerns elsewhere, Finland enjoyed de facto independence from early 1918-on, and was the first of only a few countries that Sovnarkom recognized as being independent and not simply controlled by counterrevolutionary forces. So it should really be no surprise to anyone that the Reds attempted to take back Finland and install their long-ousted soviets; the possibility of internal socialist revolt was minimal, because they were 1. few in number, and 2. not likely to grow substantially because the idea of going socialist was automatically associated with being pro-Russian, whether their intent was such or not.
Thanks Cheezy.

@attackfighter: What exactly was that insane rant in aid of? I don't recall anyone saying "that heroism is a bunch of goody two shoed[sic] old men running around."
 
Back
Top Bottom