Let's Invade Russia!

[LordKiran]

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union covered all of the area we are discussing; there were no international borders at all.

Internal administrative borders are assuredly not the same thing as international borders, and have a vastly different impact on the people who live and work near to them.

Further afield, are you proposing to forcibly reunite Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia; and to forcibly separate Germany into East and West, in accordance with the fixed borders at the end of WWII?

Hey, some here are advocating reinstatement of Mongol Empire. Do I have to remind you that Australia was not discovered yet?

Nobody was advocating for that. Are you still hung up on naming conventions from the 1200s?

 

[LordKiran]

That's a stupid thing to say. First of all I was not giving excuses, I merely informed you of the facts. Second of all, (I am informing you again) Stalin was many bad things but he was not a warmonger. Going back to Finnish war, it was an attempt to secure Leningrad from likely invasion of Hitler. Stalin offered more than generous exchange, but Finland which was tilting toward Germany at that time declined it.

Again, You suggested that present day Mongolia has some kind of relation to "Tartaria", which is ridiculous to say the least. If anything it's Russia who should own Mongolia by that logic. Because Russia as is a direct descendant of said "Tartaria"

3. Sure, but not every state is in itself responsible for those land grabs. I don't recall the Nepali ever taking over India, nor do I recall the Irish ever expanding into Britannia .

Irish most certainly invaded the isle. The fact that they came before these other guys is no excuse.

1. So if someone doesn't give you what you want you can just go in and take it?

Depends on the context.

Guy was a warmongering asshat. Finland was (For the final time) under zero obligation to give Stalin THEIR sovereign soil. So he went and just took it. Stop trying to defend Stalin's warmongering.

Afghanistan was under no obligation to hand Ben Laden to US.

2. Because it does. Tartaria is the name westerners gave to their empire. There is no direct relation between the region of Tartaria and modern Tatars.

You are talking nonsense.

3. So you can point to Irish kingdoms established on Britannia?

What?

1. No, it doesn't. Stop being obstinate.

2. They actually offered to, we invaded anyway because fuck those brown people I guess.

3. No you just don't know your history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartary Also while we're at it, since you insisted that "Mongols are not turks/tatars." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turco-Mongol_tradition

4. If the Irish invaded Brittania and took over their lands then surely you can point to the kingdoms they established.

 

[Sarpedon]

the fact that the Soviet Union occupied those countries does not mean those countries no longer existed. In fact, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania all had recognized governments. (in some cases more than one)

 

[J842P]

1. So if someone doesn't give you what you want you can just go in and take it? Guy was a warmongering asshat. Finland was (For the final time) under zero obligation to give Stalin THEIR sovereign soil. So he went and just took it. Stop trying to defend Stalin's warmongering.

Stalin was a lot of terrible things, but you can hardly accuse him of war-mongering in this case. The writing was on the wall for at least a decade prior to this - Hitler had expansionist and *explicitly genocidal* intentions against Russia. He wrote and published books about exactly what he ended up doing. Russia spent the latter part of the inter-war period practically begging other members of the League of Nations to check Germany. The problem was, many European leaders were fundamentally sympathetic to the Nazis. It was Stalin who ardently opposed the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and was faced with a Europe that seemed happy to let Germany expand its borders ever closer to Russia.

It wasn't until it became clear that invasion was imminent that Russia first tried to negotiate with Finland, and then finally, when that failed, took what was necessary. Finland was a side-show, WW2 had already begun in all but name, and Stalin knew this.

 

[J842P]

I think your position is dangerous. Obviously Putin is just going to keep going. How much are you going to allow Putin to grab before you're willing to get a backbone and defend democratic freedoms? The harder we say no, the quicker Putin will drop whatever imperial plans he harbors.

Dude, your the person who argued that we should invade Russia, and it would be relatively easy, except, you know, we might lose Washington DC, New York and London. Hardly apocolyptic.



How about this: the US makes a treaty with Russia handing them over the Baltic, Belarus, and the Ukraine - and maybe Northern Europe for good measure. Seems like a *much better* outcome to me.

 

[LordKiran]

1. So if someone doesn't give you what you want you can just go in and take it? Guy was a warmongering asshat. Finland was (For the final time) under zero obligation to give Stalin THEIR sovereign soil. So he went and just took it. Stop trying to defend Stalin's warmongering.

Stalin was a lot of terrible things, but you can hardly accuse him of war-mongering in this case. The writing was on the wall for at least a decade prior to this - Hitler had expansionist and *explicitly genocidal* intentions against Russia. He wrote and published books about exactly what he ended up doing. Russia spent the latter part of the inter-war period practically begging other members of the League of Nations to check Germany. The problem was, many European leaders were fundamentally sympathetic to the Nazis. It was Stalin who ardently opposed the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and was faced with a Europe that seemed happy to let Germany expand its borders ever closer to Russia.

It wasn't until it became clear that invasion was imminent that Russia first tried to negotiate with Finland, and then finally, when that failed, took what was necessary. Finland was a side-show, WW2 had already begun in all but name, and Stalin knew this.

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

 

[J842P]

Stalin was a lot of terrible things, but you can hardly accuse him of war-mongering in this case. The writing was on the wall for at least a decade prior to this - Hitler had expansionist and *explicitly genocidal* intentions against Russia. He wrote and published books about exactly what he ended up doing. Russia spent the latter part of the inter-war period practically begging other members of the League of Nations to check Germany. The problem was, many European leaders were fundamentally sympathetic to the Nazis. It was Stalin who ardently opposed the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and was faced with a Europe that seemed happy to let Germany expand its borders ever closer to Russia.

It wasn't until it became clear that invasion was imminent that Russia first tried to negotiate with Finland, and then finally, when that failed, took what was necessary. Finland was a side-show, WW2 had already begun in all but name, and Stalin knew this.

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

 

[Sarpedon]

In the Nazi Soviet Pact, Finland was designated as part of the USSR's sphere of influence. So Stalin demanded territory from them, to remove them further away from Leningrad and certain other key positions. Finland refused, and the winter war happened. Finland ended up losing after inflicting severe loss to the USSR. They gave up the territory demanded. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Finns took the opportunity for revenge, retaking their territory and aiding Germany in the Siege of Leningrad, which caused around a million civilian deaths. After the war, Finland had to once again turn over the disputed territory, but the western allies managed to intercede with Stalin (who was actually quite reasonable with post war settlements) to keep him from inflicting greater punishment.

Hitler played a similar trick on Romania: in the secret part of the Ribbentrop Molotov pact, he said that the USSR could have the romanian region of Bessarabia. After the USSR forced them to give it up, Hitler then appealed to the angry Romanians to join the axis to reclaim that territory and more.

 

[LordKiran]

In the Nazi Soviet Pact, Finland was designated as part of the USSR's sphere of influence. So Stalin demanded territory from them, to remove them further away from Leningrad and certain other key positions. Finland refused, and the winter war happened. Finland ended up losing after inflicting severe loss to the USSR. They gave up the territory demanded. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Finns took the opportunity for revenge, retaking their territory and aiding Germany in the Siege of Leningrad, which caused around a million civilian deaths. After the war, Finland had to once again turn over the disputed territory, but the western allies managed to intercede with Stalin (who was actually quite reasonable with post war settlements) to keep him from inflicting greater punishment.

Hitler played a similar trick on Romania: in the secret part of the Ribbentrop Molotov pact, he said that the USSR could have the romanian region of Bessarabia. After the USSR forced them to give it up, Hitler then appealed to the angry Romanians to join the axis to reclaim that territory and more.

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

 

[J842P]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

 

[LordKiran]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

I wouldn't because you'll notice Stalin didn't give them their territory back after the fact. Isn't it funny how Russian borders grew by "Protecting themselves" Right...

All of this is just using so many words to once again reiterate "Stalin secured the interests of his people at the expense of others." And in that regard he is little different from any fascistic dictator you care to mention.

 

[barbos]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

I wouldn't because you'll notice Stalin didn't give them their territory back after the fact.

Stalin knew it was pointless because of future Mongol Empire.

 

[LordKiran]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

I wouldn't because you'll notice Stalin didn't give them their territory back after the fact.

Stalin knew it was pointless because of future Mongol Empire.

Hey you never know. If I were president, I would give Mongolia a shit ton of land from former Russia if we went to war together

 

[barbos]

1. So if someone doesn't give you what you want you can just go in and take it? Guy was a warmongering asshat. Finland was (For the final time) under zero obligation to give Stalin THEIR sovereign soil. So he went and just took it. Stop trying to defend Stalin's warmongering.

Stalin was a lot of terrible things, but you can hardly accuse him of war-mongering in this case. The writing was on the wall for at least a decade prior to this - Hitler had expansionist and *explicitly genocidal* intentions against Russia. He wrote and published books about exactly what he ended up doing. Russia spent the latter part of the inter-war period practically begging other members of the League of Nations to check Germany. The problem was, many European leaders were fundamentally sympathetic to the Nazis. It was Stalin who ardently opposed the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and was faced with a Europe that seemed happy to let Germany expand its borders ever closer to Russia.

It wasn't until it became clear that invasion was imminent that Russia first tried to negotiate with Finland, and then finally, when that failed, took what was necessary. Finland was a side-show, WW2 had already begun in all but name, and Stalin knew this.

People forget that Stalin tried to make a "pact" with Great Britain and France against Hitler, only when it failed he went to Hitler to get some kind of something in order to delay inevitable War with him.
GB and France saw USSR as worse than Nazi Germany and saw Hitler as a solution to the problem of these dirty commies

 

[Horatio Parker]

1. So if someone doesn't give you what you want you can just go in and take it? Guy was a warmongering asshat. Finland was (For the final time) under zero obligation to give Stalin THEIR sovereign soil. So he went and just took it. Stop trying to defend Stalin's warmongering.

Stalin was a lot of terrible things, but you can hardly accuse him of war-mongering in this case. The writing was on the wall for at least a decade prior to this - Hitler had expansionist and *explicitly genocidal* intentions against Russia. He wrote and published books about exactly what he ended up doing. Russia spent the latter part of the inter-war period practically begging other members of the League of Nations to check Germany. The problem was, many European leaders were fundamentally sympathetic to the Nazis. It was Stalin who ardently opposed the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and was faced with a Europe that seemed happy to let Germany expand its borders ever closer to Russia.

It wasn't until it became clear that invasion was imminent that Russia first tried to negotiate with Finland, and then finally, when that failed, took what was necessary. Finland was a side-show, WW2 had already begun in all but name, and Stalin knew this.

So, if I understand correctly, because Stalin warned about Hitler, and his demands of Finland were moderate, then attacking Finland was not war mongering?

Someone should've told the League of Nations...

Also, hostilities were concluded in march 1940 - before Hitler decided to turn to the east. There were no signs of imminent invasion at that time.

While the record of the western powers was hardly blameless wrt Czechoslovakia, it was Hitler's betrayal that led to a firmer western stance on Poland. And what was Stalin doing then?

 

[Sarpedon]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

No, there was a formal military arrangement between the two.

You could say that the manipulation and aggression they suffered left them with little choice.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think your position is dangerous. Obviously Putin is just going to keep going. How much are you going to allow Putin to grab before you're willing to get a backbone and defend democratic freedoms? The harder we say no, the quicker Putin will drop whatever imperial plans he harbors.

Dude, your the person who argued that we should invade Russia, and it would be relatively easy, except, you know, we might lose Washington DC, New York and London. Hardly apocolyptic.



How about this: the US makes a treaty with Russia handing them over the Baltic, Belarus, and the Ukraine - and maybe Northern Europe for good measure. Seems like a *much better* outcome to me.

I'm worried that if we appease Russia world war will become inevitable. Putin will think he can get away with shit. So he'll keep pushing. With the risk of saying a trope.... just like Hitler. If we'd come down hard on Hitler at the very start I think a world war could have been avoided.

It's a question of doing whatever has the least cost in human lives. A small war now is sometimes better than big war later. That's my thinking here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

I wouldn't because you'll notice Stalin didn't give them their territory back after the fact. Isn't it funny how Russian borders grew by "Protecting themselves" Right...

All of this is just using so many words to once again reiterate "Stalin secured the interests of his people at the expense of others." And in that regard he is little different from any fascistic dictator you care to mention.

The historical context is that from 1807 to 1917 Finland was a Russian province. Taken from the Swedes. Since Stalin was a nationalist, he wanted it back. Completely ignoring that Finland had belonged to Sweden for close to a thousand years prior.

That's a problem in Europe. Everybody has a historical claim to everything else. And ethnic borders are fluid. There's just no point "giving back" land. It's better just to freeze borders and do our damndest to prevent nationalists from grabbing land from others.

 

[barbos]

Dude, your the person who argued that we should invade Russia, and it would be relatively easy, except, you know, we might lose Washington DC, New York and London. Hardly apocolyptic.



How about this: the US makes a treaty with Russia handing them over the Baltic, Belarus, and the Ukraine - and maybe Northern Europe for good measure. Seems like a *much better* outcome to me.

I'm worried that if we appease Russia world war will become inevitable. Putin will think he can get away with shit. So he'll keep pushing. With the risk of saying a trope.... just like Hitler.

If we'd come down hard on Hitler at the very start I think a world war could have been avoided.

It's a question of doing whatever has the least cost in human lives. A small war now is sometimes better than big war later. That's my thinking here.

Something or rather everything is seriously wrong with your thinking.

 

[barbos]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

I wouldn't because you'll notice Stalin didn't give them their territory back after the fact. Isn't it funny how Russian borders grew by "Protecting themselves" Right...

All of this is just using so many words to once again reiterate "Stalin secured the interests of his people at the expense of others." And in that regard he is little different from any fascistic dictator you care to mention.

The historical context is that from 1807 to 1917 Finland was a Russian province. Taken from the Swedes. Since Stalin was a nationalist, he wanted it back. Completely ignoring that Finland had belonged to Sweden for close to a thousand years prior.

That's a problem in Europe. Everybody has a historical claim to everything else. And ethnic borders are fluid. There's just no point "giving back" land. It's better just to freeze borders and do our damndest to prevent nationalists from grabbing land from others.

Here is a problem in Europe and you are an excellent illustration of it. Problem is, you don't listen. You were just told about context and reasons of these historical events, yet you continue with your retarded propaganda like nothing happened, it just went through your brain without inducing any kind of effect.