Finland-Russia (visiting, France, Italian, Poland)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it was not. Take a look at the map below and please tell me how they didn't follow the secret part of the agreement.
You produced a map that is not referenced to anything; every piece of evidence that has been released since 1989, has not at all stated the Soviets had any intention on annexing Finland. Please show me this actual evidence; not an opinion, not a map, not some interpretation of the event, but actual evidence of this.
The premises of the Pact was non-aggression, and to divide E. Europe into spheres of influence; the Soviets, even with this Pact, knew the Germans would break this Pact, this is why the Pact was quite a surprise to everyone, because it was almost common knowledge regarding Germany's feelings towards the USSR.
Also, the Soviets pursued not one, but TWO alternatives to the Pact; 1) the Soviets wanted a defensive pact with the UK, in which the UK refused; 2) the Soviets wanted Poland to allow Soviet troops into Poland to counter a German attack, reason being the Soviets did not think Poland's military would be effective, and Poland refused this as well. So, the Soviets pursued the third and only alternative, a Pact with Germany even though the Soviets knew in all likelihood, the Germans would violate.
I have no idea what they are teaching you in Finland, but I suggest you start reading less biased history. Heck, even look at Germany's troops movements/requests immediately following the Pact, that should clue you in into what the actual objective of the Pact was...
Of course not, Finland has a super free speech. Who the hell wouldn't side with Germans if the plague of Asia tries to invade your country? Btw this happened only after the first round which ended as a stalemate I would say.
The first round "Winter War" was not a stalemate; the USSR took all of its demanded territories and more. The Soviets demanded territories, Finland refused, Soviets invaded and captured the requested territories, I would not call that even close to being a stalemate.
As for allying with Germany; you are kind of correct, and kind of not; the Soviet threat was diminsihed since the Soviets had the territory they requested, but Finland wanted to take back the territories lost in the Winter War, so they turned to Germany for assistance.
Of course after that failed, and a sane leadership took power in Finland, Finland and Germany went to war with each other; the Finns go to war with Germany to keep the Germany plague out of Finland?
The first round "Winter War" was not a stalemate; the USSR took all of its demanded territories and more. The Soviets demanded territories, Finland refused, Soviets invaded and captured the requested territories, I would not call that even close to being a stalemate.
So much for the theory that Russia never attacked anyone unless provoked.
So much for the theory that Russia never attacked anyone unless provoked.
:-/
The case of the WWII would be a very bad example of it. Russia was a real target of all German actions, so in this case Russia definitely can be considered being provoked, since all the attacks/takeovers of the territories were clearly preventive measures. What wouldn't have served Russian interests, would have served German interests sooner or later - plain in simple. Eat or be eaten.
Now as far as Russia attacking without being provoked - that goes to far earlier times. Like for example Peter the Great's and his wars for access to Baltic Sea ( for having sea routes, without which Russia couldn't develop any longer as a major European power, taking in consideration the importance of trade.) But in this respect Russia was not different from other European powers.
I'd say "be careful" to someone who speaks Asiatic language himself - that's number one my anonymous friend, and number two - as it already has been mentioned here, initially Russians were trying to negotiate the territories with Finland, since it was a matter of security. They were definitely not interested in the takeover of the country. Molotov - Ribbentrop pact ( and territories divided ( Finland including)) came already later in time, after all initial negotiations didn't bring any results.
Initially no. The negotiations brought us nowhere, and the talks ended in April 1939. After the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact the Soviets fueled the negotiations and asked for something we couldn't accept.
As Stalin had created a puppet government already three days after declaring war, it is perfectly clear that the USSR wanted a satellite state in Finland totally dependent on the USSR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
The first round "Winter War" was not a stalemate; the USSR took all of its demanded territories and more. The Soviets demanded territories, Finland refused, Soviets invaded and captured the requested territories, I would not call that even close to being a stalemate.
Ultimately it was. As for the peace treaty, of course not, but most historians agree if that Finland wouldn't had fought the Red Army, our future would've been the same as with the Baltic States.
We lost territory, but won to keep our independence.
But I would like to ask you, if the mighty USSR felt so threatened by tiny Finland, what did the Soviets gain by seizing Finnish territory? Was Leningrad suddenly safe as the border was shifted 100 km west? We liberated all those territories lost in 1941 in a matter of months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
So, the Soviets pursued the third and only alternative, a Pact with Germany even though the Soviets knew in all likelihood, the Germans would violate.
Might've known, but even as the bombs started falling on 22 June 1941 the Russians couldn't believe their eyes.
Ultimately it was. As for the peace treaty, of course not, but most historians agree if that Finland wouldn't had fought the Red Army, our future would've been the same as with the Baltic States.
We lost territory, but won to keep our independence.
Which fighting are we talking about; WW2 or the Winter War?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
But I would like to ask you, if the mighty USSR felt so threatened by tiny Finland, what did the Soviets gain by seizing Finnish territory? Was Leningrad suddenly safe as the border was shifted 100 km west? We liberated all those territories lost in 1941 in a matter of months.
The USSR was not threatened by Finland, it was threatened by the assumption Finland could be used as a staging area for an attack on the USSR. As Finland leaned more westward, the assumption became more of a realization (in Soviet minds), so in order to create a larger buffer, the Soviets demanded territory.
And while Finland did regain the territory in a matter of months (it took the Soviets three months to gain it during the Winter War), it was gained piggy backing on the largest land invasion in history, so it is not like they did it on their own. Finland ultimately loss this territory again, and entered into peace with the USSR (when they knew Germany was not going to prevail, or at least be able to assist), and Finland even turned on Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
Might've known, but even as the bombs started falling on 22 June 1941 the Russians couldn't believe their eyes.
Not just the Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and Baltics were the first to have the Germans cross into the territory, so it was not only "Russians" who could not believe their eyes. The surprise was not the fact Germany was attacking, but the timing of it. The Soviets expected Germany to attack a couple of years later, not at that moment. Knowing Germany would attack was common knowledge, with Stalin even mentioning it in public speeches, just the timing caught everyone off guard as the USSR thought Molotov bought some time for the USSR.
What I wonder though is; if Finland would have maintained neutrality in WW2, what would have happened? Are there any theories out there on this?
Which fighting are we talking about; WW2 or the Winter War?
The Winter War yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
The USSR was not threatened by Finland, it was threatened by the assumption Finland could be used as a staging area for an attack on the USSR. As Finland leaned more westward, the assumption became more of a realization (in Soviet minds), so in order to create a larger buffer, the Soviets demanded territory.
Finland leaned westwards since the year 1100, it couldn't come as a surprise to the Muscovites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
And while Finland did regain the territory in a matter of months (it took the Soviets three months to gain it during the Winter War), it was gained piggy backing on the largest land invasion in history, so it is not like they did it on their own. Finland ultimately loss this territory again, and entered into peace with the USSR (when they knew Germany was not going to prevail, or at least be able to assist), and Finland even turned on Germany.
Sure, no doubt about that. But as the Germans advanced thousands of kilometres, what matter did the 100 km barrier the Soviets stole from us for "protection".
And the Finns got way further than the old borders. This is an iconic picture of crossing it:
The Finns could've tightened the loose on Leningrad and cut off the Murmansk railroad which was vital for the lend-lease program, but we didn't do it, as our high command didn't really want the nazis to win, but rather the nazis and soviets destroying each other. Too bad it didn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
What I wonder though is; if Finland would have maintained neutrality in WW2, what would have happened? Are there any theories out there on this?
Famine, if Germany would've wanted it, that is certain. Our foreign trade was had to go via German occupied Denmark. In 1944 Stalin would've just taken us. The allies sacrified Poland, so why would Finland be another situation?
Too bad that our scenario didn't come to fruitition and the other despicable terrorist-moloch-disgusting-satan-poobutt-golem-pohjan akka-crapfactory lasted until 1991.
But the next Barbarossa we will win, that's for certain, and Putler's head will hang on a spike. And all pro-Russian dhimmis' heads as well, be it west or east.
The Finns could've tightened the loose on Leningrad and cut off the Murmansk railroad
Another BS, Finns didn't do it because they couldn't, their troops were already fully engaged in fighting on Hitler side against Russian troops in the siege of Leningrad. Siege of Leningrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Either Ariete works for western secret services and wages informational war here or Finland's branwashing machine is truly impressive.
Finland really should be endlessly grateful for USSR not taking the whole country after WWII for their Hitler support. BTW in the siege of Leningrad 642,000 civilians died in the city itself, thanks to Finland as well.
Russians are so infinitely forgiving. And that's our problem as we can see now in Ukraine.
Another BS, Finns didn't do it because they couldn't, their troops were already fully engaged in fighting on Hitler side against Russian troops in the siege of Leningrad. Siege of Leningrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Either Ariete works for western secret services and wages informational war here or Finland's branwashing machine is truly impressive.
Finland really should be endlessly grateful for USSR not taking the whole country after WWII for their Hitler support. BTW in the siege of Leningrad 642,000 civilians died in the city itself, thanks to Finland as well.
Russians are so infinitely forgiving. And that's our problem as we can see now in Ukraine.
The Finnish army, the Karelian high command, stopped on the old border as Hitler said that he will annhilate the city and its people, and we didn't want to take any part of it. Neither did we make any attempt to disrupt the lifeline above the frozen Lake Ladoga. Not a single Finnish bomb or artillery shell was ever dropped on Leningrad. Genocide was not our policy.
Meanwhile, this didn't stop the evil Soviet scum of bombing constantly Kotka, Turku, Porvoo, Tampere, Pori and in 1944 Helsinki with as many planes as the allies decimated Leipzig. Luckily the stupid analphabet Russians didn't know how to read maps, and most of the bombs dropped into the sea or the countryside.
We will never be grateful for that evil bulge of Asia that has terrorised our country for the last 1000 years, and the fall of the Soviet Union was the best day of my life! Hopefully all wise Russians will flee your fascist Putin nation and leave all you stupid morons there. And if you come here with arms, we have plenty of lampposts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- that's number one my anonymous friend, 
and number two - as it already has been mentioned here, initially Russians were trying to negotiate the territories with Finland, since it was a matter of security. They were definitely not interested in the takeover of the country. Molotov - Ribbentrop pact ( and territories divided ( Finland including)) came already later in time, after all initial negotiations didn't bring any results.
