It’s a fact.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    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.

    Comparing this to Czechoslovakia, USSR still took exactly what it initially demanded

    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.

    asked USSR for protection (because Nazis were scarier), Soviet troops entered those countries and suddenly there were Soviet state institutions in place and plebiscites.

    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.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Baltics and Finland just chose differently, Finns to fight and Baltics to give in.

      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).

      So if you gain anything depends on whether you believe USSR had further ambitions in Finland or not.

      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.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.