The Winter War and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

[Wanted Man]

Overall, Stalin's attack on Finland in 1939 divided the Finnish left and alienated a large part of the previously Red masses from communism.
The Winter War was certainly a shameful event. :( Despite the political and military necessity (and the eventual slight success), there were great costs. Not only what you mentioned, but also the great losses. Moreover, it also alienated Finnish diplomats, who were previously sympathetic towards the USSR's demands to Finland.

The only good thing about it, was that the political and military failure led to improvements in both these areas. The takeover of the Baltics, and the destruction of the fascist states there, had much better results.

[Sentinel]

The only good thing about it, was that the political and military failure led to improvements in both these areas.Yeah, the fascists might have succeeded when they attacked the USSR otherwise.. On the other hand, many suspect that the Operation Barbarossa was partially triggered by the Soviet failure in the Winter War -- Hitler and his generals saw that the Red Army, failing to conquer a so much smaller country, wasn't in the best of shapes.

[spartan]

Yeah, the fascists might have succeeded when they attacked the USSR otherwise.. On the other hand, many suspect that the Operation Barbarossa was partially triggered by the Soviet failure in the Winter War -- Hitler and his generals saw that the Red Army, failing to conquer a so much smaller country, wasn't in the best of shapes.

That is most probably true, as after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Hitler gave Stalin a free hand in Eastern Poland, Finland and the Baltic states.

It just seems to obvious to deny that when Hitler saw that the biggest country, with the biggest army, in the world was having huge problems conquering a low populated state, with the smallest army in Europe, that he didnt think to himself "Well perhaps we should go for them (USSR) right now seeing how they cant even defeat a small country like Finland".

[Wanted Man]

Maybe. But I think that Barbarossa would have come regardlessly, and that a Red Army without any "practice" would have fared even worse. The USSR's actions in Poland, Finland, the Baltics, Bessarabia and Bukovina firstly and foremostly aimed to create a defensive "belt" around the USSR, which should not be underestimated.

[Sky]

Overall, Stalin's attack on Finland in 1939


The Karelian Isthmus was disputed territory in which Russia on behalf of Kaerlia had a claim that carried just as much legitimacy as that of Finland. The Karelian Istmus was part of Russia (Novgorod Republic) from the 9th century until it was seized by Sweden at the beginning of the 17th century. In 1721, it was returned to Russia by the Treaty of Nystadt. A large part of the Karelian Isthmus mistakenly became part of the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809. It remained in Finland when it separated from Russia in 1917. Similar to other countries, Russia was entitled to territorial integrity and inviolable borders. Precedent already established that Russia was justified in the restoration of its pre-1918 boundaries: on 1-2 November 1939 soviet rule was restored in the western parts of Ukraine and Belorussia occupied by Poland.

The hostility of the reactionary Finnish regime toward Russia posed a serious threat to the northwest Russian border and placed Leningrad in danger. In preparing for war, Finland devoted particular attention to the construction of fortifications in its border regions, especially on the Karelian Isthmus, where the frontier was only 30 kilometers from Leningrad. Finland received financial aid from England, Germany, and the United States. These funds made possible the construction of the Mannerheim Line. Pursuing a policy of peace and concerned for the security of Russia at a time of increasing fascist aggression, the Russian government made several attempts in 1938 and 1939 to improve relations with Finland.

In April 1938 the Russia proposed the negotiations toward a mutual assistance pact, but the Finnish regime rejected the proposal. In October 1939, Russia again proposed the conclusion of such a pact, but the response of the Finnish regime was negative. Influenced by England, the United States, and Hitlerite agents, the Finnish government adopted a hostile attitude toward Russia. On October 13 and 14 Finland announced the mobilization of its forces. Since the Finnish regime was unwilling to conclude a treaty of mutual assistance, Russia requested that it be permitted to lease the Hanko Peninsula. An exchange of territory was requested: if Finland agreed to cede a number of islands in the Gulf of Finland and areas on the Karelian Isthmus, compensation would be provided in the form of territory in Soviet Karelia. Although these proposals did not infringe on Finnish sovereignty, they were rejected by the Finnish regime.

The Finnish regime paid no heed to the warnings of Russia. In response, the forces of the Leningrad Military District launched an offensive on the morning of November 30. Even after the beginning of hostilities, the Russian government proposed that a comprehensive treaty of friendship and mutual assistance be concluded, but this initiative was rejected, which declared war on Russia on November 30. The Finnish regime was not saved by the assistance of certain imperialist powers: during the war, Finland received 350 planes, 1500 artillery pieces, 6000 machine guns, 100,000 rifles, and 2.5 million shells. The Soviet-Finnish peace treaty was signed in Moscow on March 12. The treaty restored Russian sovereignty over the Karelian Isthmus and Russia was granted a lease on the Hanko Peninsula for 30 years. In trying to end the Finnish occupation of the Karelian Isthmus, the Red Army endured some 200,000 casualties.


divided the Finnish left and alienated a large part of the previously Red masses from communism.
False. The Communist Party in Finland was one of the most successful in parliamentary politics. The Finnish People's Democratic League received 23.4% of the vote in 1945, a plurality 23.1% in 1958, and 18% as recent as 1979.

[spartan]

A large part of the Karelian Isthmus mistakenly became part of the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809.

Mistakenly?

Before Stalins ethnic cleansing in WW2, ethnic Finns had always been the majority in both Finnish controlled Karelia and Soviet controlled Karelia.


The hostility of the reactionary Finnish regime toward Russia posed a serious threat to the northwest Russian border and placed Leningrad in danger.

Soviet propaganda is still effective it seems after all these years:D

The Soviets were the hostile ones!

As part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Hitler gave Stalin a free hand in Eastern Poland, the Baltic states and Finland.

Stalin did away with the first two with ease but the Finns werent prepared to just roll over and be conquered by this Imperilaist trying to rebuild the Russian Empire.


In preparing for war, Finland devoted particular attention to the construction of fortifications in its border regions, especially on the Karelian Isthmus, where the frontier was only 30 kilometers from Leningrad.

If your neighbour (Who just happens to be the biggest country with the biggest army in the world) starts making very unreasonable demands concerning your sovereign territory, then i would start preparing for war by building defensive fortifications, wouldnt you?

Finland received financial aid from England, Germany, and the United States.
Your point being?

The Finns had a small population and the smallest army in Europe.

They were coming up against the biggest country in the world with the biggest army in the world.

I think that we can forgive them for taking whatever they could from whatever sources were available at the time.

"If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." Winston Churchill

This sort of critiscism of Finland is odd, especially when we consider that the USSR also worked with the Nazis in the carving up of Eastern Europe between themselves.

Later on the USSR also became allies with Capitalist nations and yet i dont see any critiscism from you on that.

Of course you will say that this was all justified because the USSR was fighting for its very existence, well guess what, so was Finland!

Give them the same fucking respect that you give to the USSR because it is only fucking fair!


Pursuing a policy of peace and concerned for the security of Russia at a time of increasing fascist aggression, the Russian government made several attempts in 1938 and 1939 to improve relations with Finland.

Yeah by bullying and threatening them to give up vital seaports and parts of their territory which would render them defenceless to a takeover (Which i am sure Stalin promised he would never do:rolleyes:).


Influenced by England, the United States, and Hitlerite agents, the Finnish government adopted a hostile attitude toward Russia.

Where do you get this shit from, the Stalin Society?

Get your head out of your arse and join us in the real world and we can then have a real discussion using factual evidence, not some Soviet propaganda hearsay used to justify Stalins blatant Imperilaism.

The Soviet-Finnish peace treaty was signed in Moscow on March 12. The treaty restored Russian sovereignty over the Karelian Isthmus and Russia was granted a lease on the Hanko Peninsula for 30 years. In trying to end the Finnish occupation of the Karelian Isthmus, the Red Army endured some 200,000 casualties.
I am sure Stalin slept really nice in his big Kremlin bed knowing that all those people died for nothing.

[Sky]

This sort of critiscism of Finland is odd, especially when we consider that the USSR also worked with the Nazis in the carving up of Eastern Europe between themselves.

Your defense of Finland is quite odd considering that it was a fascist state which provided Germany use of its territory to wage its war of annihilation against Russia. The White Finnish regime itself, in addition to its expansionist aims against Karelia, had committed aggression against the Soviet Union in 1941-44 and was subsequently required to pay reparations just like all the other fascist aggressors.



Yeah by bullying and threatening them to give up vital seaports and parts of their territory which would render them defenceless

The fact of the matter is that Soviet negotiations with Finland would have no effect on the sovereignty of the Finnish state. We saw that when Russia eventually received its territorial requests through the Moscow Treaty of March 1940, Finland in the post-war era had in fact led a genuinely independent existence through its policy of strict neutrality in contrast to NATO vassal states like the Netherlands. Had Finland yielded to the reasonable negotiations of the Soviet Government then it could have averted the 1939-40 conflict and involvement in 1941-44 altogether.

[Sky]

Mistakenly?

The Karelian Isthmus and the city of Vyborg belonged to Russia long before they became part of Finland. While Vyborg had belonged to Russia since 1720, it became part of the Grand Duchy of Finland only in the early 19th century. That Vyborg and its surrounding area became part of the Grand Duchy of Finland had to have been a mistake.


Before Stalins ethnic cleansing in WW2, ethnic Finns had always been the majority in both Finnish controlled Karelia and Soviet controlled Karelia.

That is false. The 1926 census on the Karelian ASSR shows that Russians composed 56 percent of the population. Karelians, by the way, are not nor have ever been Finns.
http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_nac_26.php?reg=53


As part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Hitler gave Stalin a free hand in Eastern Poland, the Baltic states and Finland.


"Eastern Poland" was in fact Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. These provinces had been stolen by Poland when it partitioned Ukraine and Belorussia following its aggression against the soviet republics in 1919-20. The provinces of Lvov, Stanislavov, Tarnpol, and Volyn added to Ukraine had a population of 7 million of which 57% were Ukrainian and 7 % Jewish. The provinces of Novgorodek, Vilno, and Polesie added to Belorussia had a population of 3.5 million of which 50% were Belorussian and 9% jewish.

In regard to the Baltic states, Estonia and Latvia had been part of Russia since 1721. In Estonia, as in Petrograd, power passed to the soviets on 7 November 1917. By February 1918 soviets had been set up in four-fifths of the districts in Estonia, and revolutionary changes were under way. On February 18, 1918, German troops invaded Estonia. In November a bourgeois regime with K. Pats as prime minister was formed with the cooperation of the occupation authorities. On 29 November 1918, units of the Seventh Army, including Estonian regiments, liberated Narva, where the Estlandia Labor Commune was proclaimed that same day. Power passed to the Council of the Commune, whose chairman was Jan Anvelt. The government of Russia recognized the independence of Estonia in a decree signed by Lenin on 8 December 1918. Estonia was subject to foreign aggression. A British squadron invaded on 12 December 1918 and mercenaries from Finland, Sweden, and Denmark were brought to Estonia. Opening their offensive in early January 1919, the combined forces of the interventionists and White Guards smashed the Estlandia Labor Commune.

On 28 September 1939 Russia and Estonia signed a mutual assistance pact, providing for the stationing of Red Army troops in Estonia. In June 1940, Soviet troops entered Estonia with the consent of the Estonia regime. On 21 June workers’ demonstrations took place in Tallinn, Tartu, Narva, and other cities, and the regime was overthrown. A people’s government was formed under the leadership of J. Vares. In the 15 July 1940 election, 93 percent of the electorate voted for the candidates of the Working People’s League of Estonia, a united electoral coalition of the democratic strata. On 21 July 1940, the State Council proclaimed the restoration of Soviet rule and the establishment of the Estonian Soviet Republic. The State Council requested the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to admit Estonia into the USSR. On 6 August 1940 the Supreme Soviet of the USSR granted the request, and the Estonian SSR entered the USSR as a soviet socialist republic.

[spartan]

Your defense of Finland is quite odd considering that it was a fascist state which provided Germany use of its territory to wage its war of annihilation against Russia.

First off the only aspect of Finland i am defending is the lies that you openly tell about it.

Finland wasnt a Fascist state, indeed it defeated a coup attempt by Fascists in the 30's (Which would be a bit odd if it were indeed a Fascist state as you say it was).

As for providing Germany usuage of its territory, this was because they were allies, and last time i looked, allies tend to help each other out with intelligence, technology, weapons, etc.

It wasnt an alliance that Finland was happy to be in, they had asked the allies for assistance against the USSR and had been turned down because the allies didnt want to agitate a potential future ally in the USSR.

Thus Finland was left with Sweden and Germany to provide assistance whilst they were defending their homeland from aggression by the biggest country with the biggest army in the world.

Sweden gave minimal assistance to its neighbour, which amounted to a few thousand volunteers and various weapons, but they to didnt want to agitate the USSR.

Whilst Germany offered them the services of the best engineers, troops, weapons, etc in the world and all of them in large amounts.

Besides Finland forcibly ejected the remaining German soldiers from its territory in the Lapland war (Something that you conveniantly forgot to mention).

I seem to remember the USSR allowing the German army to train with weapons that the Germans were banned from using by the treaty of Versailles, such as airplanes and tanks (This is where the Germans honed their future Blitzkrieg tactics to perfection).

Then of course there is the open collaboration between the USSR and Nazi Germany following the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

But hey the USSR called itself Socialist so thats alright:rolleyes:

[Sky]

Then of course there is the open collaboration between the USSR and Nazi Germany following the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.There was nothing wrong with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The USSR was faced with the choice of war either in September 1939 or June 1941. Logically, they chose the latter.

The allegation of collaboration between the USSR and Nazi Germany is absurd. I am not ware of the Red Army fighting alongside the Wehrmacht in the invasion of Poland, etc the way the Finnish fought alongside the Germans in the aggression committed in the Leningrad and Karelia regions.

[spartan]

The allegation of collaboration between the USSR and Nazi Germany is absurd. I am not ware of the Red Army fighting alongside the Wehrmacht in the invasion of Poland, etc the way the Finnish fought alongside the Germans in the aggression committed in the Leningrad and Karelia regions.

They went one worse and openly policed their conquered territories with their new German neighbours:

Here is good old Uncle Joe with his new German friends, he seems quite happy but i wonder what Lenin would have thought about all this? (You will of course notice Lenins portrait above Stalin):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/MolotovRibbentropStalin.jpg
German and Soviet soldiers in front of a FAI armoured car (And before you come out with allegations that either of the soldiers in this image are actually prisoners, you will be glad to know that they are all still armed, the Soviet soldiers pistol can clearly be seen on his right side, which would be very odd for someone who has just been taken prisoner):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Germans_and_Soviets2.jpg
Soviet and German officers meeting after their joint invasion of Poland and going over joint plans together:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/German_Soviet.jpg
German and Soviet soldiers at the border of peace established by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Germans_and_Soviets_demarcation_BT.jpg

[Sentinel]

The Karelian Isthmus was disputed territory in which Russia on behalf of Kaerlia had a claim that carried just as much legitimacy as that of Finland. The Karelian Istmus was part of Russia (Novgorod Republic) from the 9th century until it was seized by Sweden at the beginning of the 17th century. In 1721, it was returned to Russia by the Treaty of Nystadt. A large part of the Karelian Isthmus mistakenly became part of the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809. It remained in Finland when it separated from Russia in 1917. Similar to other countries, Russia was entitled to territorial integrity and inviolable borders.
The Karelian Isthmus and the city of Vyborg belonged to Russia long before they became part of Finland. While Vyborg had belonged to Russia since 1720, it became part of the Grand Duchy of Finland only in the early 19th century. That Vyborg and its surrounding area became part of the Grand Duchy of Finland had to have been a mistake.And who lived on the Carelian Isthmus all this time, and were constantly torn between two imperial powers, one in the west and one in the east? That's right, the Finns. And not just on the northern Carelian Isthmus, but on the southern part of it and south of the river Neva as well. The city of St Petersburg was founded on Finnish soil by Czar Peter the great of the Russian empire, after his victory against Karl XII of the Swedish empire. Viborg and the Carelian Isthmus were added to the Grand duchy of Finland because they were populated by finns -- although Viborg was a very international town with Finnish, Swedsih, Russian and German residents.

And what you are doing is apologism for this empire-building and drawing of borders, to which both Sweden and Russia were guilty. You apparently consider these entirely artificial borders drawn by these kings and emperors legitimate, and how a so called communist could do that is beyond me..


Similar to other countries, Russia was entitled to territorial integrity and inviolable borders. Precedent already established that Russia was justified in the restoration of its pre-1918 boundaries: on 1-2 November 1939 soviet rule was restored in the western parts of Ukraine and Belorussia occupied by Poland.The borders you speak of were those of the Russian Empire. And listening to you one starts to think you were a fan of that state?


The hostility of the reactionary Finnish regime toward Russia posed a serious threat to the northwest Russian border and placed Leningrad in danger. In preparing for war, Finland devoted particular attention to the construction of fortifications in its border regions, especially on the Karelian Isthmus, where the frontier was only 30 kilometers from Leningrad. Finland received financial aid from England, Germany, and the United States. These funds made possible the construction of the Mannerheim Line. Pursuing a policy of peace and concerned for the security of Russia at a time of increasing fascist aggression, the Russian government made several attempts in 1938 and 1939 to improve relations with Finland.Absurd bullshit. Finland planned to invade Russia? :lol:

You do realise that that's the bullshit justification the USSR used in an attempt to legitimise the annexion of Finland, which had already been decided when Molotov and Ribbentrop divided Eastern europe between themselves. However, a child would understand that a minor country like Finland, with a however reactionary government, would not have attacked the USSR in a state of sobriety, even with 'financial aid'. For that they would have needed a powerful ally in the war, one that sent troops. Any 'preparations' and fortifications built clearly were meant as defenses.

In the Continuation war Finland took part in the Barbarossa, but then the entire situation was different: they were allied with Germany who also attacked the USSR. This situation was not the situation in 1939 -- then the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was in effect, and Germany and the USSR were buddies. The western allies? They did promise to send troops to aid Finland after the USSR attacked, but they never did.


In April 1938 the Russia proposed the negotiations toward a mutual assistance pact, but the Finnish regime rejected the proposal. In October 1939, Russia again proposed the conclusion of such a pact, but the response of the Finnish regime was negative. Influenced by England, the United States, and Hitlerite agents, the Finnish government adopted a hostile attitude toward Russia. On October 13 and 14 Finland announced the mobilization of its forces. Since the Finnish regime was unwilling to conclude a treaty of mutual assistance, Russia requested that it be permitted to lease the Hanko Peninsula. An exchange of territory was requested: if Finland agreed to cede a number of islands in the Gulf of Finland and areas on the Karelian Isthmus, compensation would be provided in the form of territory in Soviet Karelia. Although these proposals did not infringe on Finnish sovereignty, they were rejected by the Finnish regime. The Russian proposals were never meant as anything but a provocation, the suggestion that Finland would trade strategically important and densely populated areas for a piece of East-Carelian woodland was entirely absurd. The lease of Hanko meant, that the USSR would have a military base in the vicinity of Helsinki. Also, the Finnish government suspected -- correctly, as the example of the Baltic States would show -- that these secessions would only lead to further claims by the USSR and eventually an occupation of Finland. The Finnish rejection of the proposal was of course welcomed by Stalin, who had planned to conquer Finland all the time. Finland of course tried to keep peace into the last, as they knew a Soviet attack would mean a disaster, and likely an end to Finland as a sovereign nation.


The Finnish regime was not saved by the assistance of certain imperialist powers: during the war, Finland received 350 planes, 1500 artillery pieces, 6000 machine guns, 100,000 rifles, and 2.5 million shells. It 'wasn't saved'? How come it sat firmly in power after the winter war? The Winter War was as near to a total failure for the Stalinist government one can get -- they utterly failed in conquering all of Finland, which was the goal.


False. The Communist Party in Finland was one of the most successful in parliamentary politics. The Finnish People's Democratic League received 23.4% of the vote in 1945, a plurality 23.1% in 1958, and 18% as recent as 1979.Read what I said again, slower this time. I did not claim that communism disappeared in Finland, just that it lost support -- a lot of it. Yes, the communists were still strong, but not as strong as they could have been. Without the hatred for communism the war caused among large parts of the population, we might have seen a new revolution in Finland, instead of the capitalism still present. My parents were active communists in Finland in the post-war period, and could tell you some about it.

I'm entirely opposed to the Finnish regime before and during the war, it was anti-communist and despicable. But please let's keep the historical facts straight here and not involve inane Soviet war propaganda. Also, stop with your history teacher style right now, I am finnish and know what happened, my grandfather fought in the war, and my father explained these events from a communist perspective to me, and I've done my own research since.


There was nothing wrong with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The USSR was faced with the choice of war either in September 1939 or June 1941. Logically, they chose the latter.

Utter horseshit, of course, but no matter the reasons they were buddies and that's what matters. Action.


etc the way the Finnish fought alongside the Germans in the aggression committed in the Leningrad and Karelia regions.In the continuation war. Again, in the Winter war and during the period when the USSR tried to annex the areas that were considered 'it's' in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Finland was alone save a few volunteers and some material aid, mainly from the western allies -- who were against this plan to divide eastern Europe between the USSR and Nazi Germany.

[Sky]

Utter horseshit, of course, but no matter the reasons they were buddies and that's what matters. Action.
This is not true. The two countries were never obligated to assist one another if the other went to war.

[Sky]

Soviet and German officers meeting after their joint invasion of Poland and going over joint plans together:

There was not a joint invasion of Poland. Poland was already defeated by the time Russia moved in to liberate the occupied Ukrainian and Belorussian provinces. By September 8, the Germans had already reached the outskirts of Warsaw. The Polish had no chance because they received no assistance from England and France. Because of the surprise German invasion on 1 September, the Polish had been able to mobilize just 70 percent of their military strength. Any and all agreements between Russia and Poland lost any binding force because the Polish regime no longer held sovereignty of Polish territory.

If anyone can be accused of helping Germany to conquer Poland, then it would be the English and French who stood idly throughout September 1939. This idleness proved to be of much more help to Germany than the entry by the Red Army in the non-Polish provinces of the "Polish Republic"


at the border of peace established by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

Germany and Russia, it should be reminded, had never severed diplomatic relations prior to 1941. That the two countries had an embassy in one another's country did not equate to an alliance. When the Bonn regime in the ''Federal Republic of Germany'' finally decided to accept the Oder-Neisse line in 1970, it did not simultaneously conclude an alliance with the Polish People's Republic.


You apparently consider these entirely artificial borders drawn by these kings and emperors legitimate, and how a so called communist could do that is beyond me..

The boundaries of the Russian Empire were no less legitimate than those of the Finnish Republic



The borders you speak of were those of the Russian Empire. And listening to you one starts to think you were a fan of that state?

I don't approve of the policies of the Russian Empire, but I recognize that it is important to take into account historical precedent regarding territory. Tibet, for example, is a part of people's China simply because the latter has held sovereignty over it for the last hundreds of years.


The Russian proposals were never meant as anything but a provocation

We saw that Soviet proposals posed no threat to Finnish sovereignty. Post-war Finland was an independent and firmly non-aligned State that avoided involvement in either military bloc. Any allegation that the Soviet Union intended to incorporate all of Finland is baseless. They only asked for a territorial adjustment, and received that request with the Moscow Treaty.


In the continuation war.

Finland in the ''continuation war'' had violated the Treaty of Moscow. It committed outright aggression against the Soviet Union for which it was appropriately punished by its obligation of reparations.

[Dimentio]

To argue about what country had the right to repress an area is to use a retarded argument, but I will play along and debate from a bourgeoisie perspective (as you) for debate's sake.

Finland was not a united country before it became a part of Sweden in the 14th century. Before that, there were several Ugric tribes inhabitaing Finland proper, Estonia, Ingermanland, and Karelia. The Russians dwelt to the south of Ingermanland and Narva.

Sweden took Finland while the Novgorodian Republic took Karelia, dividing the Finnish areas into two parts.

In 1617, Sweden intervened in the Russian civil war, and took all of Karelia and Ingermanland, thus unifying the main parts of the Finnish people underneath the same central government.

In 1720, Russia took Karelia and Ingermanland from Sweden, as well as the two thirds of Balticum previously controlled by Sweden. In 1743, Russia took Vyborg.

All the areas west of Petrozavodsk and St. Petersburg were still ethnically Ugric.

In 1809, Russia cut loose Finland from Sweden and created the Grand Duchy of Finland, giving Vyborg and the Isthmus to Finland, which was not a part of Russia but a separate Grand Duchy and a parliamentarian monarchy under the governship of the Russian Tsar, who did not rule over Finland in his position as tsar but as grand duke.

Legally, Finland was autonomous.

In 1918, at the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, Lenin formally seceded all the western areas of the former Russian Empire, and even one year earlier, he recognised Finland as an independent state.

The "historically Russian" argument is revisionist and stinking, especially giving the fate of the Karelian people, which by 1 million moved west-wards during the war.

That is comparable to the Palestinian tragedy, to the Darfur disaster, and to other ethnical cleansings around the world.

And you are calling yourself progressive?

[Sky]

To argue about what country had the right to repress an area is to use a retarded argument, but I will play along and debate from a bourgeoisie perspective (as you) for debate's sake.
The accusation that I've been arguing from a bourgeois point of view is offensive, for there is nothing bourgeois about territorial dispute regarding its history. The historical perspective of the Karelian region formed a small part of my argument. By this rationale, the following qualifies as a bourgeois argument, which is just absurd:

In the mid-13th century, Tibet was officially incorporated into the territory of China's Yuan Dynasty. Since then, although China experienced several dynastic changes, Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of the central government of China.
http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/tibet/9-1.htm

[Dimentio]

The accusation that I've been arguing from a bourgeois point of view is offensive, for there is nothing bourgeois about territorial dispute regarding its history. The historical perspective of the Karelian region formed a small part of my argument. By this rationale, the following qualifies as a bourgeois argument, which is just absurd:

In the mid-13th century, Tibet was officially incorporated into the territory of China's Yuan Dynasty. Since then, although China experienced several dynastic changes, Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of the central government of China.
http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/tibet/9-1.htm

Adherence to history and "who settled the land first" is bourgeois. So that argument is bourgeois. ^^

And please, take a look at this darling (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns120.htm)

[Jazzratt]

The accusation that I've been arguing from a bourgeois point of view is offensive,

Offensive isn't the same as untrue.


for there is nothing bourgeois about territorial dispute regarding its history.

There is something terribly bourgeois about getting up in arms about Russia retaking it's rightful land. The USSR, by this point, was a twisted mockery of socialism acting in the interests of people who were, in all but name, their national bourgeoisie - that was the aim of Stalins "glorious" expansion.

I'm sorry you feel the need to defend every action taken by the USSR but it's a mainly self-chosen burden, probably because you're a drooling stalin-kiddie wanker. Before you get up in arms at me consider what it is you've taken time out of your busy schedule of masturbating to pictures of Stalin to defend - can you truly say that buddying up with fascists under any circumstance is a good thing for a leftist to do? Then again, just as I imagine you reading this with a dumfounded look on your face and your dick in your hands, I imagine you would defend the current actions of Russian "communists" (pwhaha) who team up with the fash to break up gay pride parades. You're a vile creature and I hope you drown in the shit you spew before I have to read another of your posts.

[Sky]

You're a vile creature and I hope you drown in the shit you spew before I have to read another of your posts.

It is rather disturbing how apparently anti-capitalist anarchists speak in a way that is indistinguishable from the most vociferous anti-communists when it comes to discussing actual socialism.



I'm sorry you feel the need to defend every action taken by the USSR but it's a mainly self-chosen burden

Actually, on more than one occasion on this forum, I demonstrated support for the Afghan mujahideen of the 1980s.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

On the Afghanistan and the U.S./China/Pakistan/Iran/Saudi-backed counterrevolutionary "mujahedin" see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/happened-afghanistan-80s-t69914/index.html & http://www.revleft.com/vb/death-sentence-reading-t69817/index.html

[Comrade Hector]

They went one worse and openly policed their conquered territories with their new German neighbours:

Here is good old Uncle Joe with his new German friends, he seems quite happy but i wonder what Lenin would have thought about all this? (You will of course notice Lenins portrait above Stalin):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/MolotovRibbentropStalin.jpg
German and Soviet soldiers in front of a FAI armoured car (And before you come out with allegations that either of the soldiers in this image are actually prisoners, you will be glad to know that they are all still armed, the Soviet soldiers pistol can clearly be seen on his right side, which would be very odd for someone who has just been taken prisoner):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Germans_and_Soviets2.jpg
Soviet and German officers meeting after their joint invasion of Poland and going over joint plans together:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/German_Soviet.jpg
German and Soviet soldiers at the border of peace established by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Germans_and_Soviets_demarcation_BT.jpg

I just love how anti-Communists use these photos to strengthen their ridiculous position. This was an act of Stalinism, a desire for capitulation and present himself as a respectable statesman.

These photos are grotesque indeed, but they're no less grotesque the seeing Red Army soldiers with U.S and British imperialist armies.

[careyprice31]

I like this thread. I learned details I never knew before. I didnt know that the land that st petersburg was founded on belonged to finland then. I did not know that the Swedish king was called King Karl. I havent studied much about the time of peter the great, I know about his childhood and young manhood and how he came to power, and the founding of st petersburg, thats about it though. I know about him being a reformer tsar and him making russia more open to the west and causing the deaths of many people and his own son. Thats about it.

and in other threads I learn what 'primitivism' means and technocracy and so many other terms.

Boy do I learn a lot from you guys. :)

[Sentinel]

Split from the 'Finnish Revolution of 1918' thread.