Interesting take. Finland was a democracy with universal suffrage. The red army was conducting an unprovoked invasion because finland refused to just cede land to Russia.
It was a land swap to which Finland would have come out ahead. They would have received more land of equal value in the trade in the Karelia region.
The point of the swap was to move Finland’s borders further from Leningrad, which was close enough to Finland that they could shell it from their side. The USSR was ultimately proven right as Finland joined with the Nazis in invading the USSR after Barbarossa.
They would have received more land of equal value in the trade in the Karelia region.
Twice the amount.
Denna F. Flemming - The Cold War and Its Origins
[The Soviets] demanded: (1) the lease of a naval base at
Hangoe, across the Gulf of Finland from their bases in Estonia; (2) the
cession of five islands in the Gulf, which controlled Leningrad strategically
by sea; and (3) 2761 square kilometers of land on the Karelian isthmus, the
new border to be demilitarized. In return, twice the amount of land farther
north was offered.
They weren’t proven right. The continuation war was a direct result of the outcome of the winter war. They were attempting to regain lost territory. I’m curious where finland would have landed had they never been invaded in the first place. It’s OK to admit a state didn’t behave perfectly, no state in the history of man has.
The reason for proposing the swap in the first place was that Finland was cozying up to the Nazis and there was a very real risk they would let Germany through to attack the USSR.
I call it incredible foresight. Finland thought they were untouchable, so they spat on a good deal and where did that bring them.
When the CIA provided (and continues to provide) weapons to insurgent groups all over the world, they go to fascists (Ukraine, Argentina), religious theocrats (Mujahadeen), or thugs( MS-13)
I think the more relevant question is if one nation influences another nation’s people, does it improve the lives of the influenced nation or deteriorate it?
I understand leaders can make mistakes, but why do you take issue with funding the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic in particular?
That’s an enormous difference. “I’m going to take your house and you can pound sand” is much more objectionable than “I would like your house and will offer you fair compensation, which can implicitly be negotiated.”
Note that the latter is what governments around the world do with eminent domain, and only right-wing cranks think that’s a fighting matter.
I can’t speak for the world, but often in the US, imminent domain is often used to transfer land to wealthy corps at a fraction of the actual value with no negotiation. Other times, it’s used to destroy minority communities. If you think that makes me a right-wing chud, I’m not sure what to say to you.
When you definitely know what you’re talking about
Obviously I’m not talking about the clearly objectionable misuses of eminent domain. If I say only chuds have a problem with seatbelt laws you wouldn’t start talking about how cops misuse seatbelt laws to pull over black people at a higher rate than white people; all laws can be abused. The point is that the concept behind the law is not some crazy government overreach.
Getting back to the discussion, a land swap is not something so objectionable that your country has an excuse to go running to the Nazis for help. Especially when the threat of the Nazis is the reason for the land swap in the first place.
Simo Hayha, the person who killed Red Army soldiers on behalf of a far-right bourgeois dictatorship?
Interesting take. Finland was a democracy with universal suffrage. The red army was conducting an unprovoked invasion because finland refused to just cede land to Russia.
It was a land swap to which Finland would have come out ahead. They would have received more land of equal value in the trade in the Karelia region.
The point of the swap was to move Finland’s borders further from Leningrad, which was close enough to Finland that they could shell it from their side. The USSR was ultimately proven right as Finland joined with the Nazis in invading the USSR after Barbarossa.
Twice the amount.
Denna F. Flemming - The Cold War and Its Origins
They weren’t proven right. The continuation war was a direct result of the outcome of the winter war. They were attempting to regain lost territory. I’m curious where finland would have landed had they never been invaded in the first place. It’s OK to admit a state didn’t behave perfectly, no state in the history of man has.
The reason for proposing the swap in the first place was that Finland was cozying up to the Nazis and there was a very real risk they would let Germany through to attack the USSR.
I call it incredible foresight. Finland thought they were untouchable, so they spat on a good deal and where did that bring them.
Finland was moving close to Germany before the nazi rise because Russia was fueling a Civil War in finland. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Elaborate on what you mean by “fueling a civil war”.
Providing weapons
When the CIA provided (and continues to provide) weapons to insurgent groups all over the world, they go to fascists (Ukraine, Argentina), religious theocrats (Mujahadeen), or thugs( MS-13)
I think the more relevant question is if one nation influences another nation’s people, does it improve the lives of the influenced nation or deteriorate it?
I understand leaders can make mistakes, but why do you take issue with funding the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic in particular?
The finish civil war was long over by that point…
Ah sure, the brave and noble Finnish warriors would have never taken anything else other than what was theirs in 1939. The very righteous cause of Finland can be seen over the fact that they never engaged in any acts such as assisting in the slaughter of one million Soviet citizens or putting and starving Russians living in land that had always been Russian, most of them elderly and children, in concentration camps.
What lack of knowledge on marxist concepts and terminology does to a mfer
refused to
just cedeswap landtowith Russia[n SFSR/USSR]That makes zero difference. They were still demanding land from another state under threat of invasion.
That’s an enormous difference. “I’m going to take your house and you can pound sand” is much more objectionable than “I would like your house and will offer you fair compensation, which can implicitly be negotiated.”
Note that the latter is what governments around the world do with eminent domain, and only right-wing cranks think that’s a fighting matter.
I can’t speak for the world, but often in the US, imminent domain is often used to transfer land to wealthy corps at a fraction of the actual value with no negotiation. Other times, it’s used to destroy minority communities. If you think that makes me a right-wing chud, I’m not sure what to say to you.
When you definitely know what you’re talking about
Obviously I’m not talking about the clearly objectionable misuses of eminent domain. If I say only chuds have a problem with seatbelt laws you wouldn’t start talking about how cops misuse seatbelt laws to pull over black people at a higher rate than white people; all laws can be abused. The point is that the concept behind the law is not some crazy government overreach.
Getting back to the discussion, a land swap is not something so objectionable that your country has an excuse to go running to the Nazis for help. Especially when the threat of the Nazis is the reason for the land swap in the first place.
“You didn’t proofread after autocorrect, so I need to insult you.” Stopped reading after that. Have a good one.