this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
96 points (84.8% liked)
World News
34685 readers
614 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's true, except people from Baltic countries, all of the Eastern Block, and notably Finns love the narrative of bad bad barbaric Russia that always oppressed them, and bad bad totalitarian USSR that was "worse than Nazis".
Just recently certain Linus Torvalds expressed a interesting sentiment about being a Finn and knowing something about "Russian aggression", well, Soviet-Finnish conflicts didn't start with the Winter war, and the Winter war was preceded by a few suggestions ending in an ultimatum. By those suggestions Finland would receive far greater amounts of territory (in the areas it claimed before at that) than the stripe of land and a few small islands in artillery range of Leningrad it would be giving away. That's rather soft if you consider the character of the preceding Soviet-Finnish war. And Finland's participation in the blockade of Leningrad while allied with, well, Nazis makes the "worse than Nazis" argument more easily understandable and still wrong.
The area USSR wanted to take had parts of Finnish main defensive line at the very important Karelian Isthmus and areas they wanted to give were total wilderness. So it's not that surprising it wasn't agreed to, even if the total area was larger.
It did feel like the sort of deal Czechoslovakians were forced into. And we know what happened there. Same for Baltics.
Building a few more bunkers is easier than moving a city, especially in the 30s.
But to help your argument, there were plenty of propaganda pieces and Finnish communist organizations supported by the USSR before the war. So probably there were intentions of biting off more than expressed.
And to help mine (sort of, it's an appellation to authority), I think I've read many notable figures, even Mannerheim himself, considered the proposed deal reasonable.
Comparing this to Czechoslovakia, USSR still took exactly what it initially demanded, and I don't remember Nazis offering anyone anything in exchange. And comparing this to Baltics - there it was a different scheme, where IIRC their governments (small cozy authoritarian ones, which is very funny) asked USSR for protection (because Nazis were scarier), Soviet troops entered those countries and suddenly there were Soviet state institutions in place and plebiscites.
It's not massively unreasonable on the surface of it. A main defence line is easier to move than a whole city. The argument is there. But also not giving up land is also not unreasonable when you consider the examples of what happened when you gave in with Czechoslovakia and Baltics, especially when that land includes parts of that main defence line, making the whole line kinda worthless. Czech Sudetenland also included their defence line, so it's understandable that that example would be fresh in people's minds.
So really there were no guarantees that after agreeing to it, giving up the main line, the USSR wouldn't just take the rest of it. It clearly had ambitions in Eastern Europe, in the former Russian Empire's lands and had just divided Poland with Nazi Germany. So if you gain anything depends on whether you believe USSR had further ambitions in Finland or not.
That's just a result of USSR wanting a quick conclusion to the embarrassment that was Winter War. Had Finland folded in the war like they had hoped, I doubt they would've settled for just those areas. They had puppet government ready, were planning that they'd do this and that once they win and so on. See the Baltics, it started out smaller then they were absorbed.
No. USSR compelled them to take in troops with ultimatums, same ultimatum Finland got. Baltics and Finland just chose differently, Finns to fight and Baltics to give in. But once the USSR's troops were in, it was basically over for the Baltics and those troops were used then to conquer and absorb them.
Different situations, Finland had lots of sympathies from both future western Allies and the fascist nations, and a better military.
About Czechoslovakia - I meant the Nazi approach to negotiations, like calling bombardment of a city in the middle of a diplomatic meeting. Compared to that USSR was almost civilized. Nazis were much like ISIS (similar ideology to Salafism too).
It definitely had, but Stalin with his "socialism in one particular country" already lowered the bar on that a bit. Still till his death USSR would be preparing for global thermonuclear war for world dominance and such.
OK, I think we agree on this. My initial post was about the stereotype which ignores the first and the third of the wars between USSR and Finland, leaving only the second, which was, yes, an aggression against Finland.
There definitely had been a long (even centuries long) conflict with Finns and Russians, with their involvement in the Civil War and Finnish heimosodat being the most recent ones before Winter War. So the war didn't come as out of nowhere than some think. But also the long conflict with Russians also played a role in the mistrust in their "we just want small areas to feel safe" argument.
But that's an openly recognized thing here in Finland. It's more of a surprise to foreigners
Percentage-wise Latvia had more % of population in SS than any other country including Germany so i think the "Latvian" part did played at least some role.
Most of the Baltics and especially ukraine had large percentages of nazis.
Nothing has changed.
Ukraine actually had tiny % of nazis in WW2. It was like 250000 or so nazis compared to at least 7 million Ukrainian partisans and Red Army soldiers. It's just that west after war absorbed, coddled and promoted the nazi survivors and after 1991 send them back with a huge propaganda bucks, and in 2014 helped them organize the coup.
It must've been that they were so active I got the impression there were more back then.
Also that there is an unhealthy amount of them in our time.
But thanks for correcting me.
Well, they have access to the biggest and most pervasive propaganda machine in the history of mankind so their narration is the one that prevail in large part of the world.
Like the mere fact that a literal Waffen SS soldier participating in many atrocities was given applause in western parliament and that wasn't met with unanimous condemnation and collapse of said parliament.
I'm having trouble following your logic here. Ninety-something year old former Nazis led a coup in 2014? Try again.
I forgive your lack of logic, but if you think that government supported ideology just magically stops spreading and carrying on to the next generation and is biologically confined to the original group, there's no point of explaining anything because you would not follow it too.