Soldat

In war things are strategic but others are not. The accumlation of Capital and gaining more capital is all what the Bourgoise want in this world. And they'll take every-mean nesscary to do this.

Also you forget that in 1939 the USSR had a number of military conflicts which made this fear more and more of a reality. *in 1939 the Japanese military tried to take mongolia and some of the territory they lost in the Invasion of 1918 due to intervention of fearful Bourgoise in the west.* Also the British air-force seemed powerful enough to even keep back the Lufftenwaffen after 1941, a full 3 years after that begining of the war, and the British navy was also able to keep back the Germany navy in many "allied" territories, after 1940, so the power of the navy was proved in the War. You also seem to take into the thinking that the British would want a strategic meaning to take it. So I'm guessing the US went to war in Afghanistan just for the Strategic postion? No, they wanted to place a new puppet goverment in the area.

of and look whose talking of that. You seem to forget that this fear, which you always seem ot overlook like the idiot you are, of the invasion by one capable of doing it was still there even after 1918. *the year when ther UK/Germany helped crushed the Red revolution and installed a Anti-Bolshevik state and next you'll say the ROK state was 'innocent' and a victum.* You are using a thinking 1939 since the war took place in that time. Before the war the USSR feared a counter-attack or even a co-operation against them. *which exactly happened in 1918 when the "allied" powers took combined efforts with the Central powers to try and take/change Russia.*

Well, well.
I suppose this means Soldat gets membership in the CCCP once again.
Since Polish is so interested in debating him.

I said the UK and Germany were the only capable ones doing it. But both could have done it and at the time of the Winter War The UK could have used its still surviving navy, see it as that in 1940 the UK and Germany were battling each other, and the fear still loomed or have you not taken into relaization that The Finnish Gulf is a uniqe navy asset used twice. At the time of the Winter War anyone with a vast and powerful navy/army could have done it and the only two at the time that could do a successful attack was Britian and Germany. speak all about it but the danger was there and, with 1918 allied invasion, the fear was still there or do you think fears dissapper quickly? The fear was there and it was pretty possible at the time and place. The Tatic was used in Pre-Continuation war and present Continuation war. So being defeated in a war they started twice is handing their ass to them?

You guys are still arguing? Oh god...

I , by no means, said Finland could attack. If you see the borders between the Soviet union and Finland between 1939-1940 you see Leningrad was so close to the border that it could be overwhlemed by forces from Finland with their allies. They did this in the Continuation War but this time when Finland lost they had to kick out their former German partners to make sure a threat in Finland would no longer be present. Yes I'm suppose to "face it" when someone who brings soucres from the right and tells me that all political tendecies are "bad."

I said before the US was selling weapons to both sides and the French Navy couldnt mass a large naval attack on the USSR. Germany and the UK were the only ones that could do it successfully, the UK/Germany both did it in the Civil War, and this thought was taken into consideredtion. It happened once so it would happen again, and did happen again, but you want to cling to the idea that the USSR was agressive in this War even though they tried peaceful means but got agressive through the Finnish act of agression. The Finnish and Soviet Relations were bad from the start, the Anti-Bolshevik Goverment made matters worse along with their former Czarist general leader, but once again I say the USSR's vanguard and people knew that Finland could be used to attack the USSR.

Again you once again forget what I say and stick words into my mouth. Then again its common for you. This idea was faced from even before the war. During the War the threat of Germany as greater then anyother nation, that and the fact that the German military was un-defeated through many "conflicts" against nations that didnt have the strenght to face/repel the German forces, but again the didnt just use the German-Soviet border they used the Finnisg-Soviet border as well, check the continuation war becuase you've forgotten history, but again you forget the fact that Leningrad was a major city in the entire, and I say again Entire, Soviet Union other then moscow and Stalingrad. But once again I said, are you blind, that France had no means of naval weapons to invade the USSR.

But for the "invasion" part I never said France, or the US would make an invasion, seeing that the US was selling weapons to both sides and France couldnt mount a massive Naval attack. Stains between Soviet and British Relations were great and the UK had the navy to use against the USSR, the USSR couldnt rebel this for they didnt have a large or effective navy, if they wished to do so. It was effective the 1st time so this fear that someone was going to attack was wide-spread not to mention that the Finnish-German Relations were high and since the Finnish President was a old Czarist commander that fought for the Czarist regime and killed thousands of red during the Failed Finnish Revolution he had no trouble fighting with the "reds." He was Anti-Bolshevik as was the Finnish Goverment.