It was a land swap to which Finland would have come out ahead. They would have received more land of equal value in the trade in the Karelia region.
The point of the swap was to move Finland’s borders further from Leningrad, which was close enough to Finland that they could shell it from their side. The USSR was ultimately proven right as Finland joined with the Nazis in invading the USSR after Barbarossa.
They would have received more land of equal value in the trade in the Karelia region.
Twice the amount.
Denna F. Flemming - The Cold War and Its Origins
[The Soviets] demanded: (1) the lease of a naval base at
Hangoe, across the Gulf of Finland from their bases in Estonia; (2) the
cession of five islands in the Gulf, which controlled Leningrad strategically
by sea; and (3) 2761 square kilometers of land on the Karelian isthmus, the
new border to be demilitarized. In return, twice the amount of land farther
north was offered.
They weren’t proven right. The continuation war was a direct result of the outcome of the winter war. They were attempting to regain lost territory. I’m curious where finland would have landed had they never been invaded in the first place. It’s OK to admit a state didn’t behave perfectly, no state in the history of man has.
The reason for proposing the swap in the first place was that Finland was cozying up to the Nazis and there was a very real risk they would let Germany through to attack the USSR.
I call it incredible foresight. Finland thought they were untouchable, so they spat on a good deal and where did that bring them.
When the CIA provided (and continues to provide) weapons to insurgent groups all over the world, they go to fascists (Ukraine, Argentina), religious theocrats (Mujahadeen), or thugs( MS-13)
I think the more relevant question is if one nation influences another nation’s people, does it improve the lives of the influenced nation or deteriorate it?
I understand leaders can make mistakes, but why do you take issue with funding the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic in particular?
I made no value judgements. I was simply presenting the facts, because nothing happens in a vacuum. I don’t know how that can be extrapolated to me supporting CIA actions or taking issue with the Finnish socialists. When you take any action, you have to be prepared for reactions, positive or negative.
You have stated unsubstantiated claims in favor of the white army.
When it comes to suffrage the socialists wanted all women to vote whereas the nationalists wanted only the “sophisticated” women to vote. link
What of value have you said here or elaborate on the knowlege base for us all? For the good of all of humanity it is good to create common understandings to reduce senseless violence.
I would suggest you to look into dialectical materialism. If you think that we communists don’t understand that actions have consequences, please do some research. Someone with the most basic understanding of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis understands that synthesis is the result of a thesis and antithesis interaction. This book is a textbook for a Marxist-Lenninist country you can read
It was a land swap to which Finland would have come out ahead. They would have received more land of equal value in the trade in the Karelia region.
The point of the swap was to move Finland’s borders further from Leningrad, which was close enough to Finland that they could shell it from their side. The USSR was ultimately proven right as Finland joined with the Nazis in invading the USSR after Barbarossa.
Twice the amount.
Denna F. Flemming - The Cold War and Its Origins
They weren’t proven right. The continuation war was a direct result of the outcome of the winter war. They were attempting to regain lost territory. I’m curious where finland would have landed had they never been invaded in the first place. It’s OK to admit a state didn’t behave perfectly, no state in the history of man has.
The reason for proposing the swap in the first place was that Finland was cozying up to the Nazis and there was a very real risk they would let Germany through to attack the USSR.
I call it incredible foresight. Finland thought they were untouchable, so they spat on a good deal and where did that bring them.
Finland was moving close to Germany before the nazi rise because Russia was fueling a Civil War in finland. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Elaborate on what you mean by “fueling a civil war”.
Providing weapons
When the CIA provided (and continues to provide) weapons to insurgent groups all over the world, they go to fascists (Ukraine, Argentina), religious theocrats (Mujahadeen), or thugs( MS-13)
I think the more relevant question is if one nation influences another nation’s people, does it improve the lives of the influenced nation or deteriorate it?
I understand leaders can make mistakes, but why do you take issue with funding the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic in particular?
I made no value judgements. I was simply presenting the facts, because nothing happens in a vacuum. I don’t know how that can be extrapolated to me supporting CIA actions or taking issue with the Finnish socialists. When you take any action, you have to be prepared for reactions, positive or negative.
Value judgments are pretty important when you’re talking about allying with Nazis.
You have stated unsubstantiated claims in favor of the white army.
When it comes to suffrage the socialists wanted all women to vote whereas the nationalists wanted only the “sophisticated” women to vote. link
What of value have you said here or elaborate on the knowlege base for us all? For the good of all of humanity it is good to create common understandings to reduce senseless violence.
I would suggest you to look into dialectical materialism. If you think that we communists don’t understand that actions have consequences, please do some research. Someone with the most basic understanding of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis understands that synthesis is the result of a thesis and antithesis interaction. This book is a textbook for a Marxist-Lenninist country you can read
The finish civil war was long over by that point…
Ah sure, the brave and noble Finnish warriors would have never taken anything else other than what was theirs in 1939. The very righteous cause of Finland can be seen over the fact that they never engaged in any acts such as assisting in the slaughter of one million Soviet citizens or putting and starving Russians living in land that had always been Russian, most of them elderly and children, in concentration camps.