Finland has been in NATO for less than a year. Before that we had a war in which USSR tried to take over the whole country and after failing at that, hovered over us for 50 years before collapsing.
But if you're saying that we shouldn't anymore be afraid of them now that we're in NATO, perhaps you're right. We'll still need to be cognizant of the fact that Russia is our only potential enemy on this planet.
But Russia is in the wrong for thinking NATO existing next to them is a threat.
Why is it OK when you say it but bad when they do? If you're encouraging others to put themselves in your shoes ("you had to be there"), why can't you put yourself in Russia's shoes and see how they could reasonably perceive NATO as a threat?
I'm not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat. I'm saying that what Russia is doing and how it's behaving, and how it talks publically is a threat.
But I do understand how NATO might be viewed as a threat to some nations or world leaders. I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
If Libya didn't want us to drag their popular leader through the streets and humiliate him before assassinating him, completely destabilizing the country and establishing open air slave markets, they should've thought twice before supporting a misogynist.
I'm not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat.
That's exactly what you said, although you said it about the USSR, which was even more absurd.
I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
So clever to fall back on the "well if I did do it, they deserved it" defense.
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you'd say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
I don't think I was being very clever there, but I'll take it!
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you’d say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
Gaddafi's Libya didn't seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic. I think we also have to note that that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed. So not really a NATO operation exclusively.
Libya went from bad to worse as a consequence though, about that you're not wrong.
Gaddafi's Libya didn't seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic.
That's the point: your "well they deserved it" excuse is nonsense. Taking your arbitrary definition of "bad" countries at face value, all NATO interventions have done is make situations worse. Its actions are much more consistent with destroying regional economic competitors than with any sort of good faith effort to help anyone.
And all that is setting aside how the U.S. and its allies have destroyed any "liberal, free, non-oppressive" countries that don't adequately toe the U.S. line (see Indonesia and Chile, among others). The countries that remain have to choose between being subservient to the U.S. (to varying degrees) or becoming the type of state liberals like you deem deserving of wholesale destruction.
that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed
Russia, China, and three other states abstained, and only NATO countries actually dropped bombs.
I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
Liberal, free, non-oppreasive, democratic nations that oppose Western neocolonial interests tend to get coup'ed by the CIA and replaced with pro-Western fascists. Countries that do survive, like for instance Cuba, have their name dragged through the mud by an enormous propaganda machine - which also whitewashes or conveniently forgets the crushing of the leftist projects that don't survive.
There are countless examples throughout history, but my go-to is Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran, in the 50's. No doubt the line will be that "that was a long time ago so it doesn't count," but the CIA covered up their involvement for decades, and if I picked a more modern example you'd likely either deny involvement or say that the government deserved it.
Iran suffered under British colonialism for decades. In the 1800's, the shahs signed all sorts of deals selling out the country at absurdly bad rates and no expiration, to fund their exorbitant lifestyles. A large scale popular movement ousted them, but the agreements remained, and a new dynasty took power with British support, and the exploitation continued. Britain secured enormous profit and wealth through Iranian oil while falsifying records to pay virtually nothing for it while the Iranians lived in abject poverty. For decades the Iranians sought a diplomatic resolution and we're completely stonewalled.
Finally, another popular movement caused the shah to appoint Mossadegh as PM (a position that had previously been hand-picked by the British). Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry to enormous popular support, but the British responded with a blockade, and offered Eisenhower support in Korea and in forming NATO in exchange for having the CIA oust Mossadegh (an offer Truman had dismissed in disgust, as this was the first case of CIA involvement of regime change).
Mossadegh, like many Iranians at the time, saw their struggle as being only against the British and trusted the US to uphold the values it preached and saw it as a potential friend. The CIA took over every newspaper in the country and started publishing anti-government propaganda nonstop. They hired false flag protesters, who claimed to support the government and then wrecked shit (as well as hiring protesters to march against the government). Politicians, vote counters, religious leaders, journalists, anyone with an ounce of power was getting bribed by the CIA. Mossadegh believed that these were genuine and legitimate expressions of dissent and did nothing to crack down. Finally, a US diplomat told him a made-up sob story about people at the embassy getting death threats from his supporters and threatened to close it, and Mossadegh got on the radio and told his supporters to stand down and stay home - the next day, the CIA launched a coup that ousted him from power.
What followed was the restoration of the shah's power, which included hunting down leftists with secret police, banning traditional religious garb to make the country appear more Western, and of course the continued exploitation of Iranian oil, the proceeds of which went straight to the king's bank account. When the Iranian Revolution of 1973 happened, decade of political repression of the left allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to be the ones that took power, and the US allowed the shah to flee there which outraged the Iranians, considering that he had previously been installed by them.
I could tell you the same story over and over again about countries all around the globe. Many nations had resources stolen from them via violence and colonialism and these resources remain in the hands of the people who took them, and anyone who attempts to reassert control over their own resources is putting themselves in the crosshairs of the the US and NATO, whether through sanctions, seizing assets, CIA backed coups, or overt military aggression. But all they have to do is cover up the truth or present a bullshit justification, and by the time it falls apart it'll be too late to do anything about it, it'll have faded from the public consciousness, and people will assert, without reason or evidence, that "they don't do that anymore" dispite having clear means and motive to and never having faced any sort of punishment for it. Meanwhile the historical examples can continue to be used to intimidate countries outside of the imperial core who don't have goldfish memories, and understand that they could be next. So they either comply with neocolonial exploitation, or they take measures to prevent CIA infiltration, which then gets them derided as "authoritarian" by people like you - and if they do neither of these things, then they get coup'ed and replaced by a fascist.
These things happen to axis powers during WW2, yes. Perhaps the white Finn government shouldn't have slaughtered its own people, joined with Hitler, kept Russian people in concentration camps, and participated in the seige of Leningrad.
Perhaps the white Finn government shouldn’t have slaughtered its own people
Yeah well civil wars are a bitch. It's difficult to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure if the Reds had won that one, a similar or worse slaughtering would have taken place. At least it happened in every other place where the communists won a civil war.
joined with Hitler, kept Russian people in concentration camps, and participated in the seige of Leningrad.
I have to point out that when USSR first attacked Finland (Winter War), we were not yet allied with Hitler. USSR was actually enacting a secret deal[0] they had made with Hitler about the division of East Europe.
The things you mentioned happened during the Continuation War, for which I think we were rightfully punished.
"Uhh well the people we slaughtered totally would have done worse, despite the fact that we were allied with the Nazis and they were against them"
Great little bit of projection my man
The things you mentioned happened during
So you admit you're cool with concentration camps
muh molotov ribbertropf
Not sure why libs think this is some kind of trump card, but I never get tired of watching them whip it out thinking it will be like holy water to a vampire. Why yes, the USSR was forced to buy itself time to fend off lebensraum by itself after a decade of the other "allies" rejecting it's defensive treaties and handing Hitler Czechoslovakia on a silver platter. It used that bought time to evacuate 7 million Jewish people from Poland. Say, what was white Finland doing with it's Jewish people around then?
For which I think we were rightfully punished
I do not take the word of fascist's descendants about whether or not they have been rightfully punished. The many thousands of working Finns who your government disappeared, tortured, raped, massacred, and dumped in ditches for the crime of wanting a better life would be a better authority on that.
That you still sit there and bloviate about "well they would have done the same to us, probably!" Is the most naked fascist cope at your dogshit country being called out for what it has become, and proof positive that no, you were not punished enough.
Lmao that's the weakest shit. "Sure we helped starve Leningrad and worked with the people who did the Holocaust, but look, some commies blew up a single synagogue during combat! This proves that we were right to massacre thousands and work with fascists, actually."
How do you type that out and fight off the embarrassment long enough to hit post? Long practice, I guess. Defending fascists tends to put you in the clown shoes time and time again.
Ok, so disregard that part if you wish. Finland was doing nothing to its jewish population during Winter War. After the alliance, we sent 8 jews who had fled from Germany back, 7 of whom were murdered in concentration camps, and then some 80 from prisoners of war who were jews. These were shitty actions, but also we blocked the deportations of many more. Specifically, exactly 0 Finnish jews were deported to Germany even though this was demanded from us.
let's look at the case of hungary. the respectable conservatives and the fascists murdered hundreds of thousands of fellow hungarians.
the evil russian hordes that conquered the country... didnt. they did super minimal purges. sadly, they let the vast majority of the fascist scum live.
so no, preemptively doing mass killings because the other side would do the same is a fascist/colonialist/racist myth.
the USSR beat your ass and STILL didnt want most of your shit country. they could’ve taken it after winning the winter war, but didnt.
The fact that their casualties were 5 times worse (or about 150x worse if we're counting tanks) than ours might have had something to do with them not wanting our shit country.
Not that it matters. The important thing was they didn't conquer us.
and you’re still convinced they’re coming for you.
Well, not anymore that much, thanks to our NATO friends.
hah, yes, k/d ratio is how you measure success, right.
As you correctly point out, this is not the only thing that matters. Other issues contributed to USSR failing to conquer Finland as they set out to do. As they indeed did to every other country they had been given the permission to conquer from Hitler.
you’re a child.
I wonder how serious Rule 2 is to lemmy.ml admins, when people keep breaking it everywhere without any consequences. Is this a sort of sandbox that I have entered into, and that's why so many people are throwing tantrums here?
"The 7th Army, comprising nine divisions, a tank corps and three tank brigades, was located on the Karelian Isthmus. Its objective was to quickly overrun the Finnish defenses on the Karelian Isthmus and conquer Viipuri. From there, the 7th Army was to continue towards Lappeenranta, then turn west towards Lahti, before the final push to the capital Helsinki. The force was later divided into the 7th and 13th Armies."
That 7th Army was the one that received extremely heavy casualties in their attempts of a breakthrough.
Also, the land concessions before starting this war demanded removal of defensive lines and a military base near Helsinki (the capital). This was just diplomacy as a means to make the war easier.
Not sure. The wikipedia article claims "Most sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland, and cite the establishment of the puppet Finnish Communist government and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact's secret protocols as evidence of this, while other sources argue against the idea of a full Soviet conquest." -- so I guess it's not entirely non-controversial.
USSR did annex all the other countries listed in Molotov-Ribbentrop though: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, eastern parts of Poland and Romania.
Well, I'm so sorry, but this discussion is just not important enough for me that I feel the need to do actual research. I'm sure you can follow up the sources in the wiki if you want to find out more yourself.
Guilty as charged, but in my defense I've been killing time while waiting for CI runs to complete... I probably could have and should have killed a little less time today.
"They tried to take the capital" does not translate to "they wanted to annex the whole country." Taking the enemy's capital is a smart move in war because it severely diminishes their ability to fight and thus makes it easier to extract the concessions you want.
Finland has been in NATO for less than a year. Before that we had a war in which USSR tried to take over the whole country and after failing at that, hovered over us for 50 years before collapsing.
But if you're saying that we shouldn't anymore be afraid of them now that we're in NATO, perhaps you're right. We'll still need to be cognizant of the fact that Russia is our only potential enemy on this planet.
"Their mere existence is a threat"
"They're just existing there...Russianly!"
I guess you had to be there.
Think about what you're saying.
Why is it OK when you say it but bad when they do? If you're encouraging others to put themselves in your shoes ("you had to be there"), why can't you put yourself in Russia's shoes and see how they could reasonably perceive NATO as a threat?
I'm not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat. I'm saying that what Russia is doing and how it's behaving, and how it talks publically is a threat.
But I do understand how NATO might be viewed as a threat to some nations or world leaders. I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
Removed by mod
If Libya didn't want us to drag their popular leader through the streets and humiliate him before assassinating him, completely destabilizing the country and establishing open air slave markets, they should've thought twice before supporting a misogynist.
That's exactly what you said, although you said it about the USSR, which was even more absurd.
So clever to fall back on the "well if I did do it, they deserved it" defense.
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you'd say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
I don't think I was being very clever there, but I'll take it!
Gaddafi's Libya didn't seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic. I think we also have to note that that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed. So not really a NATO operation exclusively.
Libya went from bad to worse as a consequence though, about that you're not wrong.
That's the point: your "well they deserved it" excuse is nonsense. Taking your arbitrary definition of "bad" countries at face value, all NATO interventions have done is make situations worse. Its actions are much more consistent with destroying regional economic competitors than with any sort of good faith effort to help anyone.
And all that is setting aside how the U.S. and its allies have destroyed any "liberal, free, non-oppressive" countries that don't adequately toe the U.S. line (see Indonesia and Chile, among others). The countries that remain have to choose between being subservient to the U.S. (to varying degrees) or becoming the type of state liberals like you deem deserving of wholesale destruction.
Russia, China, and three other states abstained, and only NATO countries actually dropped bombs.
Liberal, free, non-oppreasive, democratic nations that oppose Western neocolonial interests tend to get coup'ed by the CIA and replaced with pro-Western fascists. Countries that do survive, like for instance Cuba, have their name dragged through the mud by an enormous propaganda machine - which also whitewashes or conveniently forgets the crushing of the leftist projects that don't survive.
There are countless examples throughout history, but my go-to is Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran, in the 50's. No doubt the line will be that "that was a long time ago so it doesn't count," but the CIA covered up their involvement for decades, and if I picked a more modern example you'd likely either deny involvement or say that the government deserved it.
Iran suffered under British colonialism for decades. In the 1800's, the shahs signed all sorts of deals selling out the country at absurdly bad rates and no expiration, to fund their exorbitant lifestyles. A large scale popular movement ousted them, but the agreements remained, and a new dynasty took power with British support, and the exploitation continued. Britain secured enormous profit and wealth through Iranian oil while falsifying records to pay virtually nothing for it while the Iranians lived in abject poverty. For decades the Iranians sought a diplomatic resolution and we're completely stonewalled.
Finally, another popular movement caused the shah to appoint Mossadegh as PM (a position that had previously been hand-picked by the British). Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry to enormous popular support, but the British responded with a blockade, and offered Eisenhower support in Korea and in forming NATO in exchange for having the CIA oust Mossadegh (an offer Truman had dismissed in disgust, as this was the first case of CIA involvement of regime change).
Mossadegh, like many Iranians at the time, saw their struggle as being only against the British and trusted the US to uphold the values it preached and saw it as a potential friend. The CIA took over every newspaper in the country and started publishing anti-government propaganda nonstop. They hired false flag protesters, who claimed to support the government and then wrecked shit (as well as hiring protesters to march against the government). Politicians, vote counters, religious leaders, journalists, anyone with an ounce of power was getting bribed by the CIA. Mossadegh believed that these were genuine and legitimate expressions of dissent and did nothing to crack down. Finally, a US diplomat told him a made-up sob story about people at the embassy getting death threats from his supporters and threatened to close it, and Mossadegh got on the radio and told his supporters to stand down and stay home - the next day, the CIA launched a coup that ousted him from power.
What followed was the restoration of the shah's power, which included hunting down leftists with secret police, banning traditional religious garb to make the country appear more Western, and of course the continued exploitation of Iranian oil, the proceeds of which went straight to the king's bank account. When the Iranian Revolution of 1973 happened, decade of political repression of the left allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to be the ones that took power, and the US allowed the shah to flee there which outraged the Iranians, considering that he had previously been installed by them.
I could tell you the same story over and over again about countries all around the globe. Many nations had resources stolen from them via violence and colonialism and these resources remain in the hands of the people who took them, and anyone who attempts to reassert control over their own resources is putting themselves in the crosshairs of the the US and NATO, whether through sanctions, seizing assets, CIA backed coups, or overt military aggression. But all they have to do is cover up the truth or present a bullshit justification, and by the time it falls apart it'll be too late to do anything about it, it'll have faded from the public consciousness, and people will assert, without reason or evidence, that "they don't do that anymore" dispite having clear means and motive to and never having faced any sort of punishment for it. Meanwhile the historical examples can continue to be used to intimidate countries outside of the imperial core who don't have goldfish memories, and understand that they could be next. So they either comply with neocolonial exploitation, or they take measures to prevent CIA infiltration, which then gets them derided as "authoritarian" by people like you - and if they do neither of these things, then they get coup'ed and replaced by a fascist.
Man extremely rare Truman W in there
These things happen to axis powers during WW2, yes. Perhaps the white Finn government shouldn't have slaughtered its own people, joined with Hitler, kept Russian people in concentration camps, and participated in the seige of Leningrad.
Yeah well civil wars are a bitch. It's difficult to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure if the Reds had won that one, a similar or worse slaughtering would have taken place. At least it happened in every other place where the communists won a civil war.
I have to point out that when USSR first attacked Finland (Winter War), we were not yet allied with Hitler. USSR was actually enacting a secret deal[0] they had made with Hitler about the division of East Europe.
The things you mentioned happened during the Continuation War, for which I think we were rightfully punished.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
"Uhh well the people we slaughtered totally would have done worse, despite the fact that we were allied with the Nazis and they were against them"
Great little bit of projection my man
So you admit you're cool with concentration camps
Not sure why libs think this is some kind of trump card, but I never get tired of watching them whip it out thinking it will be like holy water to a vampire. Why yes, the USSR was forced to buy itself time to fend off lebensraum by itself after a decade of the other "allies" rejecting it's defensive treaties and handing Hitler Czechoslovakia on a silver platter. It used that bought time to evacuate 7 million Jewish people from Poland. Say, what was white Finland doing with it's Jewish people around then?
I do not take the word of fascist's descendants about whether or not they have been rightfully punished. The many thousands of working Finns who your government disappeared, tortured, raped, massacred, and dumped in ditches for the crime of wanting a better life would be a better authority on that.
That you still sit there and bloviate about "well they would have done the same to us, probably!" Is the most naked fascist cope at your dogshit country being called out for what it has become, and proof positive that no, you were not punished enough.
At the time of the Winter War? Nothing, I think? USSR destroyed a synagogue in bombings in Wiborg, though.
Lmao that's the weakest shit. "Sure we helped starve Leningrad and worked with the people who did the Holocaust, but look, some commies blew up a single synagogue during combat! This proves that we were right to massacre thousands and work with fascists, actually."
How do you type that out and fight off the embarrassment long enough to hit post? Long practice, I guess. Defending fascists tends to put you in the clown shoes time and time again.
Ok, so disregard that part if you wish. Finland was doing nothing to its jewish population during Winter War. After the alliance, we sent 8 jews who had fled from Germany back, 7 of whom were murdered in concentration camps, and then some 80 from prisoners of war who were jews. These were shitty actions, but also we blocked the deportations of many more. Specifically, exactly 0 Finnish jews were deported to Germany even though this was demanded from us.
Oh no! Don't massacre all of the antisemites and fascists in my nation!
but that's just it, they didnt.
let's look at the case of hungary. the respectable conservatives and the fascists murdered hundreds of thousands of fellow hungarians.
the evil russian hordes that conquered the country... didnt. they did super minimal purges. sadly, they let the vast majority of the fascist scum live.
so no, preemptively doing mass killings because the other side would do the same is a fascist/colonialist/racist myth.
Removed by mod
The fact that their casualties were 5 times worse (or about 150x worse if we're counting tanks) than ours might have had something to do with them not wanting our shit country.
Not that it matters. The important thing was they didn't conquer us.
Well, not anymore that much, thanks to our NATO friends.
Removed by mod
As you correctly point out, this is not the only thing that matters. Other issues contributed to USSR failing to conquer Finland as they set out to do. As they indeed did to every other country they had been given the permission to conquer from Hitler.
I wonder how serious Rule 2 is to lemmy.ml admins, when people keep breaking it everywhere without any consequences. Is this a sort of sandbox that I have entered into, and that's why so many people are throwing tantrums here?
edit Okay they do take it seriously.
Removed by mod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Soviet_order_of_battle
"The 7th Army, comprising nine divisions, a tank corps and three tank brigades, was located on the Karelian Isthmus. Its objective was to quickly overrun the Finnish defenses on the Karelian Isthmus and conquer Viipuri. From there, the 7th Army was to continue towards Lappeenranta, then turn west towards Lahti, before the final push to the capital Helsinki. The force was later divided into the 7th and 13th Armies."
That 7th Army was the one that received extremely heavy casualties in their attempts of a breakthrough.
Also, the land concessions before starting this war demanded removal of defensive lines and a military base near Helsinki (the capital). This was just diplomacy as a means to make the war easier.
yes, they did attack finland. but where did they state that they wanted to annex all of it?
Not sure. The wikipedia article claims "Most sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland, and cite the establishment of the puppet Finnish Communist government and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact's secret protocols as evidence of this, while other sources argue against the idea of a full Soviet conquest." -- so I guess it's not entirely non-controversial.
USSR did annex all the other countries listed in Molotov-Ribbentrop though: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, eastern parts of Poland and Romania.
Removed by mod
Well, I'm so sorry, but this discussion is just not important enough for me that I feel the need to do actual research. I'm sure you can follow up the sources in the wiki if you want to find out more yourself.
Lmao you've been commenting in this thread nonstop for a full day now
Guilty as charged, but in my defense I've been killing time while waiting for CI runs to complete... I probably could have and should have killed a little less time today.
Maybe kill time by reading something beyond Wikipedia
Maybe
Removed by mod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#cite_note-KR2007_13-137
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#cite_note-138
deleted by creator
yeah, so they definitely didnt do it to finland not because they didnt want to in the first place, but because plucky finns something something. cool.
"They tried to take the capital" does not translate to "they wanted to annex the whole country." Taking the enemy's capital is a smart move in war because it severely diminishes their ability to fight and thus makes it easier to extract the concessions you want.
Read Clausewitz.
Yea we now who you are.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mannerheim+hitler&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
deleted by creator
deleted by creator