Arguments for cringe: Possibly killed up to 500 Soviet soldiers during The Winter War with the USSR, and is often masturbated to by chuds as a result.
Arguments for based: Him doing this was arguably justified self-defense, as the Soviet Union did initiate the conflict and draw first blood by invading Finland due to them not handing over some land they wanted.
Cringe. Those 500 soviet soldiers would have saved a lot of lives a couple years later.
He also wanted to join the nazi war but the military wouldn't let him because of his wounds.
Professionally speaking on the martial side, based. Skilled rifleman who knew how to take into account environmental and terrain factors when faced with an enemy force with greater manpower. A great study on small arms combat in a winter war zone.
Politically speaking, cringe. a propaganda figure created to bolster Finnish nationalism in a period where the reactionary Finnish government was attempting to expand it's territory through annexation of Soviet lands.
Being professionally based and politically cringe makes you cringe.
No amount of aptitude at anything makes up for using that aptitude for evil.
Ya don't learn anything if ya don't ask. :shrug-outta-hecks:
Understanding must be developed, to paraphrase HP Newton (or was it the other quotable BPP guy?)
No; educational.
LeninsRage's post filled me in on the conflict's reality. Now when people bring up Sima in the future I know what to say.
Wasn't Finland's violent repression of socialists a reason for the Soviet invasion? He's not based.
No, the war happened because the Soviets had very valid security concerns about Leningrad harbor and foreign (Nazi, British) troops being based in Finland to attack the USSR. Stalin tried to negotiate to lease some islands and a base to guard the approaches to Leningrad. But Finland's "territorial indivisibility" was written into their constitution, the Finns were extremely loath to allow Soviets troops on their soil, and they didn't take Stalin seriously at all. So their parliament stonewalled every deal all while the fucking British encouraged them to do so.
Unsurprisingly the Soviets were quite serious about their concerns so when negotiations completely failed no matter how generous the terms they invaded to gain a buffer zone. The British decided to arm the Finns and encourage them to fight the Soviets. After losing the war the Finns decided to throw in with the freaking Nazis to get revenge.
The narrative that the Finns were innocent victims of Stalin's aggression is literally propaganda. It completely cuts out all historical context of 1939-1941. They provoked the war and then collaborated with the Nazis after they lost.
Finland’s “territorial indivisibility”
Finland conversely viewed the Soviet Union's territory as very divisible and Finnish nationalists had been itching since 1918 to carve out Soviet territory for their Greater Finland pipe dream and even took a crack at it at various points
I am struggling to see how that narrative doesn't make the Soviets the aggressors.
The Soviets tried negotiating for quite some time and the Finns were completely intransigent no matter how generous the terms. Unlike the Finns the Soviets faced the possibility of a ruinous invasion on two fronts by both Germany and Japan simultaneously with no allies to fight alongside them. All they wanted were some uninhabited little islands in the Gulf of Finland or a lease on a nearby naval base but the Finns refused at every turn. So they went to war to secure their interests.
Again, the Finns did not take Soviets concerns seriously and doubted they would go to war over this, and the British egged them on in this regard (it cannot be understated just how awful British foreign policy was during this period). This despite that Stalin led the negotiations personally, something he rarely did.
It definitely backfired on that it drew the Finns into intractable hostility, thus siding with the Nazis and making Soviet concerns re:Leningrad a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the Winter War was also very important for the Red Army getting its act back together after the 37-38 terror.
So they went to war to secure their interests.
This is often how aggressors are described.
Like, I'm not trying to say the Soviets are bad (obviously) but if we're denying that the Soviets were the aggressors here, that seems like we're just ignoring reality. We can acknowledge that they were the aggressors and explain why, which I think you did a very good job of.
To be clear, I'm being nitpicky about this sentence:
The narrative that the Finns were innocent victims of Stalin’s aggression is literally propaganda.
Thing is "aggression" is a loaded term. The Finnish government was fervently anti-communist, just as much as the regimes of the Baltic States, which had fallen into Nazi orbit on the eve of WWII (leading to their occupation and annexation by the USSR after Molotov-Ribbentrop). There was a very high chance they'd have acted as a staging ground for Nazi troops anyway.
EDIT: I'm also loathe to call a war "aggressive" when it could have very easily avoided by one side not being stubborn shitheads. This isn't like, say Iraq, where Sadam complied with every demand but the US invaded anyway; or Operation Barbarossa, where the Nazis broke a written non-aggression Treaty because their intent was aggressive from the start.
Häyhä joined the White Guard at age 17. He might not have been a frothing-at-the-mouth reactionary, but he did pick the nationalist side to fight on.
