Review the results of the war of 1939–1940. Why Finland needs Karelia

I read on the Internet and in some media materials that are quite well-reasoned, from the point of view of the average person, about a new problem that Russia “must quickly stop.” I’m talking about Finland and the “hot Finnish guys” who suddenly remembered their country’s defeat in the Soviet-Finnish War and now yearn for revenge and the return of “natively Finnish territories.”

It's amazing how quickly we saw radicals in Suomi. And how quickly our media reacted to this. For some reason, before Finland joined NATO, we did not notice these very radicals or treated them calmly, realizing that in any country there is always a certain part of society consisting of the dissatisfied. Precisely the dissatisfied ones. It doesn’t matter what, it doesn’t matter what, but the main thing is that this needs to be changed urgently.

And now there is talk that the Finns are preparing for war with Russia. Materials have appeared about nationalists from Active Club Finland, who are allegedly dreaming and seeing the return of Karelia to their country. At the same time, the main argument in favor of the club’s anti-Russian views is the connection between Active Club Finland and similar organizations in the USA.

Yes, these are right-wing ultras. There, naturally, there is “Finland for Finns” and “Finland for whites”, and “Finland against LBGT”. There are even supporters of Russian radicals from the RDK (Russian Volunteer Corps, banned in the Russian Federation), fighting on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

That is, this is a gathering of those for whom the outcome of the struggle is not particularly important, what is important to them is the struggle itself. “Professional fighters against the system” from among radical youth who cannot grow up. They are known to local law enforcement and are therefore not dangerous. So, another valve to let off steam in society.

They went out into the street, walked around, shouted some slogans, behaved hooliganly, received further fines or some other measures of influence and calmed down. Society gained satisfaction from the knowledge that it could go out to protest. The government achieved controlled protest. Earrings for all sisters. This system operates in most Western countries.

Why are they trying to intimidate us?

A completely natural question that arises in any person familiar with geography and history at least at the school curriculum level. Here, I think, it’s worth recalling what the Republic of Finland is. This is a fairly sparsely populated country in Northern Europe, with a population of just over 5,5 million people, concentrated in the southern and central regions.

It is clear that you have to be a very big idiot to start a war with Russia with such a mobilization resource and in such conditions that exist today. We have already considered the issue of new problems that arose for the Russian Federation after Finland joined NATO. The airfields and ports of this country have now become targets for our missiles. Like almost all places of deployment of local armed forces and other paramilitary forces.

Russia today has become for the West the very stumbling block that has become an insurmountable obstacle to the continued exploitation of the peoples of “third” countries and the policy of neo-colonialism. The North Military District clearly showed the Americans and Europeans the impossibility of resolving issues by military means in the modern world. Russia is successfully resisting the West.

Moreover, the Russian economy turned out to be more viable than the Western economy. Enterprises switched to producing military or dual-use products. And this scares the West much more than the Russian Army. By the way, those who often monitor Western media know very well that the majority of Americans and Europeans believe in the power of the American army and NATO. The ability of the alliance to defeat the Russian army without any problems.

This is probably the main reason for attempts to intimidate Russians with new threats. It is necessary that we begin to increase the army. They began to build new military facilities. Intimidate in order to use a time-tested method of undermining our economy - the arms race! Let me remind you, as an example, of the “great bluff”, which significantly set the USSR back economically. The famous Star Wars program.

Alas, even understanding the reasons and goals of the West’s actions, we are still forced to react and deploy new formations, increase the production of new weapons to support these formations and associations. It only looks simple on paper. In real life, deploying even one division is a huge expense and a gigantic job of restructuring life in the region where the unit is deployed.

So is there a danger from Finland?

Indeed, maybe we shouldn’t react to all these conversations and threats?

Ultimately, we don’t take the “other hot guys” from the Baltic extinctions seriously. And they themselves know very well their place in both the EU and NATO. And they bark strictly at the command of the owners, realizing that if the Russian bear suddenly gets tired of it, he will simply eat them, and none of the owners will even try to save them.

It seems to me that Finland is needed by NATO (understand - the USA) for something completely different. Why do Finns need Karelia? To “restore historical justice”? Stupidity. There are more than enough territories in Finland for the number of people who live there. Just like in Russia. Butting heads with your neighbor, knowing that you will lose, is stupid.

Look what Finns are doing today. Minor jabs at Russia, such as the closure of the checkpoint and some statements that are not interesting to anyone. Little dirty tricks. This kind of “pimple” that is a little annoying, but is completely safe when used with medicated ointment or makeup. And this will continue until the standard of living of ordinary Finns decreases significantly. By the way, this is already happening.

When we talk about Russian-Finnish relations, it is unclear why we forget that Finland is a Northern European country. That Helsinki will be able to lay claim to part of the Arctic, that is, put forward claims to Russia on those territories that they consider their own. Alas, after what is happening today on the strategic canals (Suez and Panama), the Northern Sea Route is moving to key positions. And the shelf of the Arctic Ocean is quite interesting from the point of view of minerals...

This, by the way, is the answer to some readers’ questions about the “strange love” of Americans for Sweden. About why Washington is pushing Sweden so hard into NATO membership. The reasons are the same. To muddy relations between the countries of Northern Europe and Russia and grab at least something for yourself on the quiet. Both Finland and Sweden should become, in the event of a deterioration in relations, “arms” of the United States, similar to Ukraine.

Now, if we proceed from this version of the development of events, we can assume, with great stretch, of course, that the conflict in Karelia is a diversionary blow. Let it be small, but distracting from other tasks. Control of the Arctic is worth it.

And the Finns? They will die heroically defending Western democracy, just as Ukrainians are dying today.

There will be no results

Alas, today I decided not to draw conclusions or draw any conclusions. Simply because events are happening right now as you read these lines. There is a massive indoctrination of the population of Finland.

A few days ago I spoke with a Finn, the owner of a small border hotel, whom I met a long time ago. From his possessions to the border is literally a hundred meters. This never bothered anyone. Both on the Finnish and on the Russian side, this border was purely decorative. Why get through illegally if you can just drive through the checkpoint?

Now the old man starts every morning by going to the border of his property, where there is a post with an announcement that the border is a hundred meters away, and carefully inspects the territory for the penetration of “Russian illegals” or “DRG” into Finland. . Alas, the TV is working...

The Arctic as a prize... Probably the most important prize of the 21st century... The game is worth the candle, but the people... What about the people? Consumable material for politicians, nothing more. The world is fragmenting in a new way, as I already wrote in another material. Rebuilding, reflashing, reworking, you can call the process whatever you like. But this does not change the essence. We tear out the old seams and make new ones...

We are changing, reshaping the world for new conditions of coexistence of states and peoples.

Comments

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

***
- The Finns went nuts! ...
***

[knn54]

Clones (the state from the imperial/royal “test tube” of RI) are all like that.

[Dutchman Michel]

Since 1945, after the end of WWII, I see only two mistakes by Comrade. Stalin. This is what did not completely crush the Banderaites in Ukraine and did not seriously deal with the Finns

[Belisarius]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

Since 1945, after the end of WWII, I see only two mistakes by Comrade. Stalin. This is what did not completely crush the Banderaites in Ukraine and did not seriously deal with the Finns

Why blame a sore head on a healthy one? Comrade Stalin made mistakes, very big ones, but not at all the ones you are writing about.
1) Bandera’s movement was crushed. The beginning of the gradual Ukrainization of the ZU was laid by the decisions of Khrushchev in 1955 (and the first attempts were in 1953). But this is far from Banderaism. Banderaism as a political project has been nurtured since the late 80s, and was finally formed after 2014.
2) The hostility of Finland is completely the fruit of the decisions of amazing people in power in the Russian Federation. Neither Brezhnev nor Stalin have anything to do with this at all. And Comrade Stalin’s decision not to Sovietize Finland (provoking a conflict with the much more materially powerful United States and its satellites), but instead to have a friendly neutral country as a buffer is absolutely correct. The same approach was very successfully implemented in relation to Austria, and was proposed in relation to Germany.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Belisarius

The Bandera movement was crushed

They destroyed him so much that they erected monuments to him and organized museums there.

Quote: Belisarius

The hostility of Finland is entirely the fruit of the decisions of amazing people in power in the Russian Federation.

These “amazing people in power of the Russian Federation” merely activated something that had been sitting inside every Finn for a long time. /The cons are not mine

[Belisarius]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

They destroyed him so much that they erected monuments to him and organized museums there.

When were monuments erected and museums organized? In 1948? In 1953? Maybe in 1984? You are simply trying to shift responsibility from the real culprits to Comrade Stalin.

Quote: Dutchman Michel

These “amazing people in power of the Russian Federation” just activated something that had been sitting inside every Finn for a long time

Do you know what sits inside every Finn? Don’t be offended, but what you are voicing is Nazism in its purest version, that is, the biologization of culture and the definition of the “original essence” of each nation. But in general, this is a continuation of the same line for you. Only now you are trying to make all the Finns guilty besides Comrade Stalin.
Anything to shield the real culprits.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Belisarius

Anything to shield the real culprits.

+

[ada]

Quote: Belisarius

... Maybe in 1984?

Well, a direct monument - no, but you won’t like the rest for the specified period.

[bubalik]

The Bandera movement was crushed.

Note from L.P. Beria V.M. Molotov about the results of the fight against the Ukrainian nationalist underground in the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR and the need to change the work of the MGB of the Ukrainian SSR on this issue 16.05.1953/XNUMX/XNUMX
The inspection carried out by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR established that the work of the bodies b. The Ministry of State Security of the Ukrainian SSR for combating the remnants of the anti-Soviet nationalist underground and its spy-terrorist gangs in the western regions of Ukraine is still at a low level.

In a number of districts of the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR, the anti-Soviet underground continues to exist, and its gangs terrorize the working population and party and Soviet activists.

The low level of intelligence and operational work of the state security agencies of Ukraine led to the fact that The leading links of the nationalist underground in the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR have not yet been identified and there are no reliable agents capable of infiltrating these links.

If the use of Chekist-military operations in the fight against the nationalist underground and its armed gangs in the first time after the liberation of the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR from the Nazi occupiers was justified by the specific situation, then in the last period of time, when the remnants of this underground had to be fought Mainly through intelligence - operational methods, the widespread use of military operations until 1953, naturally, could not give the desired results. Thus, out of 1023 operations carried out in 1952, 946 operations ended without any result, out of 120 operations in 3 months of the current year - 109. These operations, as a rule, were accompanied by a continuous “combing” of populated areas and mass searches of the population. As a result, arrests and evictions of citizens were carried out based on insignificant materials, and sometimes without any grounds at all.
According to incoming signals, among the population of the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR, especially rural areas, there is dissatisfaction with the measures taken by the Soviet government, in particular with tax policy.

According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ukrainian SSR, over the past two or three years, a large number of complaints have been received from the peasants of the western regions of Ukraine about the incorrect imposition of taxes on them. Thus, in 1951, more than 45 complaints about excessive taxation were received; in 1952, more than 36; and in the first three months of this year alone, more than 5.

For three months in 1953, the department of military censorship of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ukrainian SSR confiscated 31 intra-union and 695 letters addressed abroad in the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR, which contained negative statements and dissatisfaction with the actions of local authorities.

In the period 1949-1950, due to weak political support for the enrollment of young people in vocational schools and FZO schools, up to 8000 people. youth became illegal and were used by anti-Soviet elements for enemy purposes.

The incessant activity of the nationalist underground in the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR is also explained by the fact that, despite the considerable time that has elapsed since the reunification of the western regions with the Ukrainian SSR, cadres of leading party and Soviet activists from among the local population have not yet been sufficiently created. As is known, in most western regions and districts, Party and Soviet organizations are headed by workers sent from the eastern regions of the Ukrainian SSR and other republics of the Soviet Union.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

didn’t understand the Finns seriously

How's that?

Quote: Dutchman Michel

Comrade's mistakes Stalin

What about “mistakes”? Comrade Stalin turned the Finns from enemies into allies (almost the only ones in capitalist Europe)...

[Doctor]

What about “mistakes”? Comrade Stalin turned the Finns from enemies into allies (almost the only ones in capitalist Europe)...

Quite the contrary. Created a bunch of problems out of the blue.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Arzt

Created a bunch of problems out of the blue.

On "flat"? For example?

[Doctor]

On "flat"? For example?

What problems did you have with Finland and the Finns before the war? None.

[gsev]

Quote: Arzt

What problems did you have with Finland and the Finns before the war? None.

The Finns invaded the USSR in 1921 and carried out armed operations against the USSR until 1922, and during this invasion the Russian population was completely slaughtered. In Finland, until 1944, plans were hatched to secede Karelia from the USSR, and until 1943, the entire Russian North and the Urals. After the Ukrainian card, the United States intends to play the Finnish one, just as long as Putin and the FSB manage to neutralize the activities of American, Ukrainian, Baltic and Finnish agents in the Finno-Ugric autonomous republics. Moreover, very often the current government looks with Socratic calm at the nonviolent actions of the local population in the Finno-Ugric autonomous regions. Follow the links “monument to fallen deserters” and “Dikiy village”. In Mordovia, in some places, police and FSB agents are at risk in the 21st century no less than they were under Stalin in Western Ukraine and the Baltic states

[Doctor]

The Finns invaded the USSR in 1921 and carried out armed operations against the USSR until 1922, and during this invasion the Russian population was completely slaughtered. In Finland, until 1944, plans were hatched to secede Karelia from the USSR, and until 1943, the entire Russian North and the Urals. After the Ukrainian card, the United States intends to play the Finnish one, just as long as Putin and the FSB manage to neutralize the activities of American, Ukrainian, Baltic and Finnish agents in the Finno-Ugric autonomous republics. Moreover, very often the current government looks with Socratic calm at the nonviolent actions of the local population in the Finno-Ugric autonomous regions. Follow the links “monument to fallen deserters” and “Dikiy village”. In Mordovia, in some places, police and FSB agents are at risk in the 21st century no less than they were under Stalin in Western Ukraine and the Baltic states

So this is the Civil War, which they invaded, they themselves were previously part of the empire, and the USSR generally began to form on December 20, 1922. With the same success we can say that Kolchak invaded the USSR.
They mostly slaughtered each other, or rather the “white” Finns of the “red”. And vice versa, of course.
After the Treaty of Tartu, everything settled down.

[gsev]

Quote: Arzt

They mostly slaughtered each other, or rather the “white” Finns of the “red”.

My uncle insisted that the Finns were much more bloodthirsty than the Germans, although my relatives fought against Bandera (he was punished for being captured in the Vyazemsky cauldron and sent to fight in Western Ukraine in 1945) and against the Germans and killed more than 10 Finns with a knife.

The USSR generally began to form on December 20, 1922.

Finland was formed in 1918, and the border was established under the threat of invasion by Germany, and therefore satisfied the interests of Finland. In 1921, the Finnish intelligentsia organized an invasion of Karelia and called for Western intervention in Russia. After 1945, Paasikivi and Kekkenon did a lot to normalize Finnish-Russian relations, but even they always openly assured their voters that Finland should be ready, in the event of a weakening of the USSR, to extract whatever it could from the USSR by maximum force. All the problems of Russia are that Putin and Yeltsin, through propaganda and financing, cultivated parasitism with anti-communism and starved industry, education and science into poverty. The Bidens, Kolomoiskys and Poroshenkos simply did not miss the chance to take advantage of the stupid things done by Putin’s entourage. Through Nabiullina, they managed to rob Russia of 600 billion in 2 years, but Mishustin and the poultry farmers turned the 5th column’s attempt to organize an egg crisis against the organizers themselves and against the saboteurs themselves.

[Doctor]

My uncle insisted that the Finns were much more bloodthirsty than the Germans, although my relatives fought against Bandera (he was punished for being captured in the Vyazemsky cauldron and sent to fight in Western Ukraine in 1945) and against the Germans and killed more than 10 Finns with a knife.

The fact that your uncle killed a dozen bloodthirsty Finns with a knife does him honor, but does that really make them our allies? This is where the dialogue began.

Finland was formed in 1918, and the border was established under the threat of invasion by Germany, and therefore satisfied the interests of Finland. In 1921, the Finnish intelligentsia organized an invasion of Karelia and called for Western intervention in Russia. After 1945, Paasikivi and Kekkenon did a lot to normalize Finnish-Russian relations, but even they always openly assured their voters that Finland should be ready, in the event of a weakening of the USSR, to extract whatever it could from the USSR by maximum force. All the problems of Russia are that Putin and Yeltsin, through propaganda and financing, cultivated parasitism with anti-communism and starved industry, education and science into poverty. The Bidens, Kolomoiskys and Poroshenkos simply did not miss the chance to take advantage of the stupid things done by Putin’s entourage. Through Nabiullina, they managed to rob Russia of 600 billion in 2 years, but Mishustin and the poultry farmers turned the 5th column’s attempt to organize an egg crisis against the organizers themselves and against the saboteurs themselves.

These are all processes of the Civil War, we and the Far Eastern Republic existed until November 1922, and so what.
The main thing is that by 1939 everything had settled down.
And then, as Doccor writes:

Comrade Stalin turned the Finns from enemies into allies (almost the only ones in capitalist Europe)...

.

I agree about Poroshenko and other poultry farmers.

[Non-fighter]

Regarding Finland and its participation in World War II, not everything is so simple. Yes, they closed the encirclement of Leningrad, many Leningraders died because of them, but they “jumped out” of the war suspiciously easily, with virtually no consequences. There are even versions that in August-September a secret separate agreement was concluded between the USSR and Finland, according to which the Finns do not take active actions (Zhukov removed EVERYTHING from KaUra, leaving several working battalions and broken units there) and, most importantly, do not allow the Germans to come to them , but in return, after our Victory, they are given more lenient conditions.

[Sergey Zhikharev]

The Finns are so smart.
1. We started the war with the USSR.
2. In August-September they realized that the USSR would not lose (despite a number of disasters - Kyiv, Bryansk, Vyazma) and backed off.
3. At the same time, the Finns (probably for the purpose of camouflage) did not forget to kill Soya in their concentration camps.
4. Easily parted with 300 billion.
Now the question is - why the hell did the Finns get into the war in the first place if they weren’t counting on revenge?

[Non-fighter]

Now the question is - why the hell did the Finns get into the war in the first place if they weren’t counting on revenge?

Answers must be sought in Finnish archives and memoirs, what Hitler promised them, what they saw after June 22.06.1941, XNUMX, how they assessed it. Well, they had VERY strong nationalist sentiments and a desire for revenge for the Winter War.

[Sergey Zhikharev]

Yeah, that is. The Finns had strong national sentiments and a thirst for revenge, and then bam (2-3 months) and that’s it, the mood and thirst disappeared....

[Negro]

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

1. We started the war with the USSR.

Rarely did anyone manage to start a war with the USSR first. I can remember two cases. The Finns are not one of them.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

2. In August-September they realized that the USSR would not lose (despite a number of disasters - Kyiv, Bryansk, Vyazma) and backed off.

England fit in there.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

3. At the same time, the Finns (probably for the purpose of camouflage) did not forget to kill Soya in their concentration camps.

It doesn't matter at all.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Now the question is - why the hell did the Finns get into the war in the first place if they weren’t counting on revenge?

So what to do? Sit and admire?

[Sergey Zhikharev]

Rarely did anyone manage to start a war with the USSR first. I can remember two cases. The Finns are not one of them.

Since when have the Finns failed to do this?
The first one. The territory of the country is granted to the state that committed an act of aggression against the USSR.
The second one. The armed parts of the country (or part of them, which does not matter from the point of view of international law) are subordinate to the army command of the state, which committed an act of aggression against the USSR.
The third. The Finnish Navy began the seizure of territory belonging to the USSR.
Fourth. The Finnish military personnel were sent to the territory of the USSR with a sabotage mission.
Taken from here https://topwar.ru/97180-kak-finlyandiya-ne-napadala-na-sovetskiy-soyuz.html?ysclid=lrovew2ca3605390751

England fit in there.

Well, England is strong! Couldn't Great Britain fit in against Romania and Hungary for an hour? Well, or influence the Finns better - let the Russians supply Leningrad by land.

It doesn't matter at all.

Genocide of the population doesn't matter? Oh well.....

So what to do? Sit and admire?

Why not? Japan did just that. You can do it differently, gather all the most violent ones, form a volunteer division/corps, and send them to war, while remaining neutral yourself. This is what Spain did. The Swedes are also accused of the same thing.

[Negro]

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Taken from here

Yes, I read these amazing stories from Soviet political instructors.

They can be told to the pioneers at the rally. The USSR chose war itself and got what it wanted. Well, maybe he didn’t really want it, but it turned out how it turned out.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Well, England is strong!

Well done! A superpower, not a bullshit.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Couldn't Great Britain fit in against Romania and Hungary for an hour?

Hungary was a German ally, not a British one. Romania was all English, but there was a pro-German coup there. By the way, the USSR also made its mark.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Well, or influence the Finns better - let the Russians supply Leningrad by land.

What for?

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Genocide of the population doesn't matter? Oh well.....

Certainly. Who cared about that in those years?

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Why not? Japan did just that.

And she didn’t guess, as it turned out. The USSR attacked it itself as soon as it was freed.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

That's what Spain did

Spain was a non-combatant ally of Britain in that war. Of course, the USSR managed to do it there too, but still, the Spaniards in the 40s had very little time for it.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

The Swedes are also accused of the same thing.

The only thing that matters is whether there is a common border with the USSR or not. So the Swedes lived a much calmer life. Although the USSR reached the Swedes, they agreed to consider this a misunderstanding.

[Sergey Zhikharev]

Yes, I read these amazing stories from Soviet political instructors.
They can be told to the pioneers at the rally. The USSR chose war itself and got what it wanted. Well, maybe he didn’t really want it, but it turned out how it turned out

.
You must not only read, you must understand. These are the facts.

Hungary was a German ally, not a British one. Romania was all English, but there was a pro-German coup there. By the way, the USSR also made its mark.

Why didn’t the Britons carry out a counter-coup in Yugoslavia?

What for?

This will make it easier for the Russians to beat the Germans.

Certainly. Who cared about that in those years?

Apparently, Seiyas doesn’t really care either....

And she didn’t guess, as it turned out. The USSR attacked it itself as soon as it was freed.

So in 1945, and here in 1941. Or the Finns are showing amazing farsightedness - we will attack, others will attack us in 5 years, but they won’t fight much, because they will beat us anyway... Well, they would have looked further - left Finland alone .

Spain was a non-combatant ally of Britain in that war. Of course, the USSR managed to do it there too, but still, the Spaniards in the 40s had very little time for it

e.
There is also the opposite point of view. Spain was a non-belligerent ally of Germany

Well done! A superpower, not a bullshit.

I don't understand your logic. Britain is your superpower, but it cannot come to an agreement with its allies (over whom it has influence). Britain and the USSR are waging a war against Germany together, while Britain calmly watches as Finland (sort of an ally of Britain) fights with the USSR. Well, the Spaniards are still sending troops. But the USA threatened the Spaniards, and the Spaniards immediately backed down...

The only thing that matters is whether there is a common border with the USSR or not. So the Swedes lived a much calmer life. Although the USSR reached the Swedes, they agreed to consider this a misunderstanding.

In terms of? There is a border with the USSR - we attack, there is no border - we live peacefully? Does this only work with the USSR, or does it also apply to other countries? When did the USSR reach the Swedes?

[Negro]

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

You must not only read, you must understand. These are the facts.

This is trepidation.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

The territory of the country was given to the state that committed an act of aggression against the USSR.

The USSR should have had no time for foreign territories on June 24th.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

some of them, which has no significance from the point of view of international law) are subordinated to the army command of the state,

Mannerheim never submitted to the German command. In any case, the problem of the USSR was the units subordinate to the German command, located directly in the USSR.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

The third. The Finnish Navy began the seizure of territory belonging to the USSR.

Lying.
The Åland Islands never belonged to the USSR.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Fourth. The Finnish military personnel were sent to the territory of the USSR with a sabotage mission.

And you are also most likely lying. I have read this amazing story several times about Finnish saboteurs who left without touching anything, but only once did I see a mention of its source (but did not see the source itself). Soviet documents of the very department whose chief was a spy for five like the RadIntelligence Departments, including the intelligence service of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijani intelligence, do you understand? Comrade Beria was literally selling Rodina in the subway passage and ran into some swindlers.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Why didn’t the Britons do a counter-coup in Yugoslavia?

The counter-coup in Yugoslavia did not bring happiness to this country, as is known. Well, after the USSR managed to attack both Romania and Hungary, it would not be easy to dissuade them from joining.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

This will make it easier for the Russians to beat the Germans.

Why do the British need this?

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Apparently, Seiyas doesn’t really care either....

By itself.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

So in 1945, and here it is 1941

Strange argument. The USSR attacked Finland in 39 and 41, not 45.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Well, we should have looked further and left Finland alone.

The Bulgarians remained neutral in the Soviet-German war. It didn't help them. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, China - countries of the anti-Hitler coalition - did not help.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

There is also the opposite point of view. Spain was a non-belligerent ally of Germany

This is the wrong point of view. The Spaniards defended Gibraltar from the Germans (which became one of the most important points of WWII), in return the British extracted oil and other goodies from the Americans for Franco.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

I don't understand your logic

If the Finns did indeed limit their gains on purpose, then it is quite logical that it was their usual allies who negotiated with them, and not their usual enemies.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Well, the Spaniards are still sending troops.

There were no troops there. Volunteers.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

In terms of? There is a border with the USSR - we attack, there is no border - we live peacefully?

If a country had a land border with the USSR at the time of the creation of the USSR, then the USSR attacked that country. It worked in all cases except one: Turkey. However, Comrade Stalin also had ideas about Turkey, but it didn’t work out; the Americans fit in.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

When did the USSR reach the Swedes?

The USSR had to bomb Stockholm too.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negro

Mannerheim never submitted to the German command.

What does Mannerheim have to do with it? The point was that часть The Finnish army was reassigned to the German command even before June 22.06.41, XNUMX. Specifically, this is V AK.

The decisive factor in planning the situation in Northern Finland was the subordination of Finnish troops to the German command in Lapland. Formally, this document was the “Order of the General Staff of the Armed Forces dated June 15.6.1941, XNUMX on the subordination of the V AK to the command post of the headquarters of the Army of Norway, located in Rovaniemi.”

© Mauno Yokipii

Quote: Negro

The Bulgarians remained neutral in the Soviet-German war.

Yeah...and the Black Sea Fleet submarines in their area of ​​responsibility sank, apparently for technical reasons. Moreover, it was precisely in those days and in those areas where Bulgarian pilots worked.

Quote: Negro

The USSR should have had no time for foreign territories on June 24th.

Seriously? On 24.06.41/22.06/24.06 the USSR should have had no time for the territories from which XNUMX/XNUMX-XNUMX/XNUMX enemy aircraft were flying (or refueling) to Tallinn, Kronstadt and Leningrad, and torpedo boats based there were sinking Soviet ships at the mouth of the Gulf of Finland?
Look, the British, in order to counter the Germans, did not even spare neutral Norway. True, they were a day late.

[Negro]

Quote: Alexey RA

The point was that part of the Finnish army was reassigned to the German command even before June 22.06.41, XNUMX. Specifically, this is V AK.

How is the USSR interested in this? Are you itching for a pre-emptive strike again?

Quote: Alexey RA

Yeah...and the Black Sea Fleet submarines in their area of ​​responsibility sank, apparently for technical reasons

Did Black Sea Fleet submarines pirate in the waters of neutral countries without declaring war? And even in wartime, when it seemed like they had something to do even without neutral countries? Not good.

Quote: Alexey RA

Seriously? On 24.06.41/22.06/24.06 the USSR should have had no time for the territories from which XNUMX/XNUMX-XNUMX/XNUMX enemy aircraft were flying (or refueling) to Tallinn, Kronstadt and Leningrad, and torpedo boats based there were sinking Soviet ships at the mouth of the Gulf of Finland?

Khe khe.

There is an opinion that specifically in June 41, the USSR had more pressing matters. Not in Finland.
By the way, ten years later some planes were flying from Soviet airfields where they were not needed. Not all of the planes returned of their own accord, but no one touched the airfields.

Quote: Alexey RA

Look, the British, in order to counter the Germans, did not even spare neutral Norway. True, they were a day late.

We weren't late in Iceland. But you know, it’s in vain to compare the occupation by the British forces and the liberation by the USSR, these are completely different calicoes.

But this is not the main nuance. Similar excuses are suitable for Bulgaria: the Bulgarians themselves may be dissatisfied, but for the USSR this operation, so to speak, cost almost nothing. I remember that the main losses were when the personnel liberated a railway tank with alcohol from Nazism.
But the tricks with Finland cost the USSR about a million in total, of which 200 were killed. This is plus or minus all US losses in Europe. Moreover, you personally, I remember, attribute the continuation war to the blockade of Leningrad: with it the number of those killed will be close to a million.

However, I remember your concept. The leadership of the USSR could not do anything. It bombed a lot of people, but only the Finns and Hungarians attacked, and for example the Danes or Swedes did not attack. Obviously, this all happened because of the idea of ​​Greater Finland and, accordingly, Greater Hungary, and not the actions of the USSR.

[Sergey Zhikharev]

The USSR should have had no time for foreign territories on June 24th.

If military planes take off from this territory and lay mines on our territory, then it must be. Moreover, they took off not on the 24th, but on the 22nd.
And not only planes were spotted, but there were also ships.

Mannerheim never submitted to the German command. In any case, the problem of the USSR was the units subordinate to the German command, located directly in the USSR.

Again. Finnish units were subordinate to the Germans
Mobilization in Finland began on June 10, 1941, under the pretext of “additional exercises” (Finnish: ylimääräiset harjoitukset). The military districts of Pera Pohjola and Pohjois Pohjanmaa called up the 3rd and 6th divisions, which concentrated in the area between Kajaani and Savukoski under the peacetime command of the V Corps. As agreed in the discussions of the previous month, the corps, led by Major General Hjalmar Siilasvuo, was officially subordinated to the German army headquarters in Norway on June 15.[9] On June 18, the corps was renamed III Corps.

Lying.
The Åland Islands never belonged to the USSR.

The Åland Islands had a demilitarized status; troops could not be stationed there. There was a Soviet consulate on the Åland Islands - its capture falls within the definition of part of the territory of the USSR.

And you are also most likely lying. I have read this amazing story several times about Finnish saboteurs who left without touching anything, but only once did I see a mention of its source (but did not see the source itself).

The high-like principle in all its glory. You can decide - is your opponent lying, or is your opponent not lying? Provide documents in support of your version. If not, then you can play this game together...
for example:

This is trepidation.

I believe that you have no arguments, and you are putting an owl on the globe

The counter-coup in Yugoslavia did not bring happiness to this country, as is known. Well, after the USSR managed to attack both Romania and Hungary, it would not be easy to dissuade them from joining.

What does Britain care about the happiness of Yugoslavia? Britain has interests. So, Finland went to the USSR to seek its happiness, Great Britain said - the Finns stopped. So the Finns were deprived of the happiness of becoming residents of Greater Finland.
And when did the USSR attack Romania and Hungary? Dates of declaration of war to the studio.

Why do the British need this?

So why did Great Britain slow down Finland in 41?
By the way, how did Finland and Great Britain agree?
“British to Finns: will you stop there at the old border”?
Or so
“The British to the Finns: hey Chukhons, stand still!”

Strange argument. The USSR attacked Finland in 39 and 41, not 45.

I'm talking about Japan. In 1939 they got hit in the neck, but in 1941 they weren’t attacked. How could the Finns in 41 know about Japan in 45?

The Bulgarians remained neutral in the Soviet-German war. It didn't help them. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, China - countries of the anti-Hitler coalition - did not help.

Considering that Finland, Hungary, and Romania were in the war with the USSR, it is strange to reduce everything to the Soviet-German war.
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, China - what didn’t help?

If the Finns did indeed limit their gains on purpose, then it is quite logical that it was their usual allies who negotiated with them, and not their usual enemies.

So why did the Finns decide to deliberately limit their activities?

There were no troops there. Volunteers.

So who stopped Finland from sending only volunteers?

If a country had a land border with the USSR at the time of the creation of the USSR, then the USSR attacked that country.

I don't understand your idea, please explain it
By the way, the dates of the attacks on Norway and Mongolia are in the studio.

The USSR had to bomb Stockholm too.

And what, the British bombed the Swedes, American bombers dropped bombs on Soviet troops - what is the conclusion from this?

[Negro]

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

If military planes take off from this territory and lay mines on our territory, then it must be.

Not more than a year and a half ago, the war with this “territory” cost more than 100 thousand killed, more than 300 thousand total. Obviously, it is best to repeat this experience in the summer of 41: when the USSR was attacked by probably the strongest army in the world.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Again. Finnish units were subordinate to the Germans

And?

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

There was a Soviet consulate on the Åland Islands - its capture falls within the definition of part of the territory of the USSR.

The Åland Islands are located between Finland and Sweden, if you are not aware. The consulate there for the next 3 years of the USSR is unnecessary.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

You can decide - is your opponent lying, or is your opponent not lying?

Well, you know, it’s impossible to prove that something didn’t happen. It is necessary to prove that “something” happened. You have indicated your level - articles on VO.

Regarding the incident in question. In RuNet it is almost always quoted from Shirokorad’s text: but Shirokorad gives it without a source, which is actually strange. There is a source in the adjacent paragraphs.

Further searches lead to the text of M. Yokipia from 1997, that is, another secondary source. In all the versions of this text on the Internet that I know of, the primary source is also not indicated. Even worse, this “raid” is presented as a “widely known incident”, without details.

However, Jokepia himself is a famous person. This is a “revisionist”, Finnish Rezun-Suvorov. His bread and butter is to write that everything was not as in the “official history”, but exactly the opposite. Even if he wrote that he personally blew up the White Sea Canal, I don’t believe a single word he said.

Consequently, the primary reason has not yet been found - this “Martten group raid” was invented by Shirokorad and others like him.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

What does Britain care about the happiness of Yugoslavia? Britain has interests.

Everyone has their own interests. Be grateful that we at least reached an agreement with Finland. With closed railway lines even only to Murmansk, and even to Arkhangelsk, 42 would have been even more fun for the USSR.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

So the Finns were deprived of the happiness of becoming residents of Greater Finland.

Why? Almost the entire Karelo-Finnish SSR was under the control of Finland.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

And when did the USSR attack Romania and Hungary? Dates of declaration of war to the studio.

Wars? The Soviet Union did not bother itself with chicanery. 28.06.40/03.07.40/39-41/XNUMX/XNUMX The Southern Front of the Red Army under the command of G.K. Zhukov liberated Bessarabia, Bukovina and the Harz region from Romania. The second and third cases were a violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and one of at least three strikes that the USSR received from the Reich in the first period of WWII (XNUMX-XNUMX). Another consequence of these events was the change from the pro-English government of Romania to a pro-German one.

Hungary entered the war with the USSR after the bombing of the city of Kosice on June 26, 1941.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

So why did Great Britain slow down Finland in 41?

Let me remind you that the USSR, on the initiative of the German side, joined the Anglo-German war on the side of England. She was not interested in a quick victory for the Reich - and the Finns could block the main route for English help in 41.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

I'm talking about Japan. In 1939 they got hit in the neck, but in 1941 they weren’t attacked. How could the Finns in 41 know about Japan in 45?

For a number of reasons, Japan had no time for the USSR in 41. Here, of course, it would be worth thanking Roosevelt and Hull: they were so itching to get into the war that I couldn’t stop myself. However, I assume you won’t thank the Americans either.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Considering that Finland, Hungary, and Romania were in the war with the USSR, it is strange to reduce everything to the Soviet-German war.

Let me remind you that WWII in Europe was an attack by Great Britain and its allies on the Reich and its allies. Throughout the war, the Reich (and partially recognized Slovakia) occupied an unambiguous position throughout the war, and Britain (and a number of exiled governments in London) on the other. Other countries already changed sides or renounced neutrality during the war, some more than once.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, China - what didn’t help?

It did not help to avoid fraternal help from the USSR.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

So why did the Finns decide to deliberately limit their activities?

Discussed above. However, I would like to emphasize that this is speculation: I am not aware of the facts of such negotiations.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

So who stopped Finland from sending only volunteers?

You see, Soviet long-range aviation did not reach Spain in 41. So the Spaniards could do some other things.
And it reached the Finns.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

I don't understand your idea, please explain it
By the way, the dates of the attacks on Norway and Mongolia are in the studio.

What's unclear here? The USSR attacked all countries with which it had land borders at the time of its creation. The only thing that didn’t reach their hands was Turkey, and that was because the Americans gave a hands-off deal. Samsonov very opportunely wrote an article about this yesterday.
During the interwar period, Finland had access to the Barents Sea, so at the time of the creation of the USSR there was no border with Norway. However, the spacecraft was in Norway from October 44 to September 45. Since in the case of Norway, the spacecraft already in 45 liberated the country not only from fascism, but also from its presence, in general Norway has no complaints.
As for Mongolia, such a country existed in the Soviet press. For all other countries, it was a part of China liberated by the USSR from the Chinese government. (And yes, China is one of the countries that had a common border with the USSR). This so-called country was legalized only in Yalta.
Regarding the “so-called country” - three of its first secretaries in a row, crossed out as “prime ministers”, died in Moscow. One, so to speak, after a long and protracted illness. Two were shot.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

So what, the British also bombed the Swedes

Swedes? I don't remember. Switzerland, yes, that was the case.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

what is the conclusion from this?

Conclusion - bomb anyone, and then whatever happens. The USSR was not always lucky.

[Sergey Zhikharev]

Not more than a year and a half ago, the war with this “territory” cost more than 100 thousand killed, more than 300 thousand total. Obviously, it is best to repeat this experience in the summer of 41: when the USSR was attacked by probably the strongest army in the world.

I didn’t understand your idea, please explain it.

The Åland Islands are located between Finland and Sweden, if you are not aware. The consulate there for the next 3 years of the USSR is unnecessary.

I'm aware of geography, and I'm also aware of history.
But these attempts ended in failure. In 1921, the League of Nations recognized the ownership of the islands of Finland, but with the rights of broad autonomy. Between the two world wars the islands maintained their demilitarized status. Their key position in the Baltic Sea was determined by the fact that one of the conditions of the Agreement between the USSR and Finland on the Åland Islands after the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940 was the establishment of a Soviet consulate in Mariehamn.
When Finland captured the Soviet embassy on the Åland Islands, it did not fall under neutrality.

Again. Finnish units were subordinate to the Germans
And?

Your thesis

Rarely did anyone manage to start a war with the USSR first. I can remember two cases. Finns are not among them

.
Those. in 41, it was not Finland, but the USSR that started the war first.
My thesis is that Finland started a war against the USSR in 41, and the USSR already hit back. I provided as evidence
The landing of saboteurs - good, there were no saboteurs.
Capture of Soviet territory - Soviet consulate on the Åland Islands
Strikes from Finnish territory by German aircraft.
It can be added that the Finnish fleet began to mine Soviet waters.
And the fact that Finnish units are subordinate to the Germans is no longer neutrality.
Consequently, in 41, Finland was the first to start the war.

Everyone has their own interests. Be grateful that we at least reached an agreement with Finland. With closed railway lines even only to Murmansk, and even to Arkhangelsk, 42 would have been even more fun for the USSR.

Dear colleague, once again. Your position - Finland stopped in 1941 due to the influence of Great Britain. To my words

Sergey Zhikharev
2. In August-September they realized that the USSR would not lose (despite a number of disasters - Kyiv, Bryansk, Vyazma) and backed off.

responded

England fit in there.

And later they explained

She was not interested in a quick victory for the Reich - and the Finns could block the main route for English help in 41.

Those. in August-September 1941, some kind of agreement was reached between Great Britain and Finland (the parties agreed on some conditions).
At the same time, your position

However, I would like to emphasize that this is speculation: I am not aware of the facts of such negotiations

.
In other words - “The Finns stopped as the British told them, but this is not certain.”
So?
You constantly refer to the Agreement, and immediately emphasize that you do not know about it. those. the agreement was so secret that no one knows, but you know. Well, if there was an Anglo-Finnish secret treaty in 41, then there could have been other secret treaties. For example, between Germany and Great Britain, or Germany and the United States against the USSR, or in general a conspiracy of Europe against Russia - Samsonov (if this is not a namesake) has written a lot about this in his military review.

Why? Almost the entire Karelo-Finnish SSR was under the control of Finland.

Those. did the Finns go to war against the USSR so that the Karelo-Finnish USSR would be part of Finland for three years? Were the sacrifices made – material and financial – worth it?

Wars? The Soviet Union did not bother itself with chicanery. 28.06.40/03.07.40/39-41/XNUMX/XNUMX The Southern Front of the Red Army under the command of G.K. Zhukov liberated Bessarabia, Bukovina and the Harz region from Romania. The second and third cases were a violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and one of at least three strikes that the USSR received from the Reich in the first period of WWII (XNUMX-XNUMX). Another consequence of these events was the change from the pro-English government of Romania to a pro-German one.
Hungary entered the war with the USSR after the bombing of the city of Kosice on June 26, 1941.

Once again: Romania and the USSR were at war in 40?
Did Romania recognize that it was fighting with the USSR in 40?
It has not been established exactly who carried out the bombing in Hungary on June 26. I believe that this was a German provocation.

Let me remind you that the USSR, on the initiative of the German side, joined the Anglo-German war on the side of England.

How interesting! Details of when and how the USSR joined this war.
It did not help to avoid fraternal help from the USSR.
Is there something you have against helping the USSR?

You see, Soviet long-range aviation did not reach Spain in 41. So the Spaniards could do some other things.
And it reached the Finns.

The distance Kyiv - Madrid is 2862 km, the flight range of the Pe-8 aircraft... With a bomb load of 2000 kg, when fully loaded with fuel, the maximum flight range of the Pe-8 was:
with AM-35A engines - 3600 km,
from M-40 or M-30 - 5460 km,
from M-82 - 5800 km.
those. Soviet planes could easily fly to Spain, and under certain conditions (reduce the bomb load), return back.
By the way, Soviet aviation did not seem to reach Italy in 41.

The only thing that matters is whether there is a common border with the USSR or not.
What's unclear here? The USSR attacked all countries with which it had land borders at the time of its creation.

I repeat once again: explain your thought, I don’t understand what you mean by this. The USSR attacked everyone with whom it granite?
In addition, at the time of its creation, the countries with which the USSR had land borders committed aggression against the USSR. Finland (1918-1921), Poland (1919-1921), Romania (1918). Later - China (1927) and Japan (1937 and 1938).

However, the spacecraft was in Norway from October 44 to September 45. Since in the case of Norway, the spacecraft already in 45 liberated the country not only from fascism, but also from its presence, in general Norway has no complaints.

Is the location of the spacecraft on the territory of Norway an act of aggression of the USSR against Norway yes/no?

As for Mongolia, such a country existed in the Soviet press. For all other countries, it was a part of China liberated by the USSR from the Chinese government. (And yes, China is one of the countries that had a common border with the USSR). This so-called country was legalized only in Yalta.

Some countries did not exist until a certain point. However, they exist now.

Swedes? I don't remember. Switzerland, yes, that was the case

.
No, exactly the Swedes
The bombings of Malmö (3 October 1940) and Lund (18 November 1943) were two violations of Swedish neutrality during World War II in which bombs were dropped from British aircraft on Swedish soil.
In this case,
According to the Swedes, during World War II the Germans bombed their country ten times, the British twelve, and the USSR was responsible for seven incidents. Moscow, however, agreed to admit its participation in only one of them. (link to an English-language book in PDF format, maybe it says about these dozens of incidents).

Conclusion - bomb anyone, and then whatever happens. The USSR was not always lucky.

But for some reason you cite that the USSR reached the Swedes, and not the USA and Great Britain reached Switzerland

[Negro]

Cough cough. You can feel the vibes of Yandex Zen and his father LiveJournal.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

I didn’t understand your idea, please explain it.

The USSR recently found out that Finland is a difficult adversary. However, he preferred to begin what he called the defense rather than wait. At the same time, just in the third ten days of June, the spacecraft seemed to have a lot of urgent matters - but no, they found time for Finland.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

When Finland captured the Soviet embassy on the Åland Islands, it did not fall under neutrality.

The dispute over the Åland Islands concerned Sweden and Finland. The desire of the Soviet Union to somehow fit into it could have worked in 40, but, as we see, it did not work in 41.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Capture of Soviet territory - Soviet consulate on the Åland Islands

Yes, a violation of the principles of diplomatic politeness.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Strikes from Finnish territory by German aircraft.

This did not happen. Read the article on VO you are linking to.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

It can be added that the Finnish fleet began to mine Soviet waters.

Estonian waters. Not all countries in the world shared the USSR's point of view that Estonia was part of it. The Baltic states are Soviet Crimea, if you don’t know.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

And the fact that Finnish units are subordinate to the Germans is no longer neutrality.

The Soviet side generally doesn’t care who obeys whom in another country.

You are some even more shy imperial than comrade. Polonsky, whose article you remembered. He writes directly

In fact, Soviet troops launched a preventive, pre-emptive strike on Finnish positions

And you are all looking for some excuses.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Consequently, in 41, Finland was the first to start the war.

Consequently, in June 41, a number of dubious incidents occurred between Finland and the USSR. The USSR chose to turn incidents into hostilities.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

You constantly refer to the Agreement, and immediately emphasize that you do not know about it. those. the agreement was so secret that no one knows, but you know.

In fact, I directly write that the influence of external forces on Finnish decisions is speculation. I have come across references in one case or another to Churchill’s role in the fate of Finland, but I am not aware of any formalized obligations.
However, a fact is a fact. The Anglo-Saxons signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Act, and even added five more states to the “Soviet zone”. An exception was made for Finland - therefore, some exceptional circumstances were in effect.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Those. did the Finns go to war against the USSR so that the Karelo-Finnish USSR would be part of Finland for three years? Were the sacrifices made – material and financial – worth it?

Since, as I already said, Finland is the only country in the “Soviet zone of influence” that managed to maintain freedom, then the answer is generally obvious.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Once again: Romania and the USSR were at war in 40?

The “state of war” is a gainful thing. If you look for it, then no one has fought in the last 80 years. For me, the situation “a country operates on the territory of another country with the forces of three armies” is quite enough.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

It has not been established exactly who carried out the bombing in Hungary on June 26. I believe that this was a German provocation.

Thank God we know what German provocations looked like in those years. They didn't look right.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

How interesting! Details of when and how the USSR joined this war.

I'm surprised you missed it. On June 22, 1941, at exactly 4 o’clock, good neighborly relations between the Reich and the USSR sharply deteriorated on the initiative of the German side.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Is there something you have against helping the USSR?

Yes of course. In general, I don’t like the USSR.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

those. Soviet planes could easily fly to Spain, and under certain conditions (reduce the bomb load), return back.

If we could get there, it’s unlikely that we’ll get back. However, the idea is beautiful.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

I repeat once again: explain your thought, I don’t understand what you mean by this. The USSR attacked everyone with whom it granite?

Well, you understand me completely. Moreover, the USSR managed to make its presence felt in countries (9 to memory) with which it did not have a common border at the time of its creation. This is before decolonization and, accordingly, the adventures of the “military advisers” of the USSR in various unexpected places.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

In addition, at the time of its creation, the countries with which the USSR had land borders committed aggression against the USSR. Finland (1918-1921), Poland (1919-1921), Romania (1918)

The USSR was created on December 30, 1922.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Later - China (1927) and Japan (1937 and 1938).

Yes, these episodes count as cases of preventive defense of the USSR from its neighbors.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Is the location of the spacecraft on the territory of Norway an act of aggression of the USSR against Norway yes/no?

Khe khe.
The Norwegian government does not consider this incident an act of aggression.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Some countries did not exist until a certain point. However, they exist now.

Yes, Mongolia has over time become quite a decent country, especially for its region. I'm very happy for them.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

According to the Swedes, during World War II the Germans bombed their country ten times, the British twelve, and the USSR was responsible for seven incidents. Moscow, however, agreed to admit its participation in only one of them.

Well, you see. In some places it rolled with bombings, in others it did not pierce. For some reason, the Finns did not particularly like the USSR and its long-range aviation.

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

But for some reason you cite that the USSR reached the Swedes, and not the USA and Great Britain reached Switzerland

It is quite possible to cite the USA and Great Britain. By the way, these are examples of fraternal Soviet assistance. The Anglo-Americans occupied, for example, Iceland. The USSR liberated, for example, Estonia. But no one liberated Denmark at all, and it was occupied by the Germans almost until the last day.

How did these countries, which were quite similar in 1939, fare further?

[Sergey Zhikharev]

Considering that first on the situation
In August-September they realized that the USSR would not lose (despite a number of disasters - Kyiv, Bryansk, Vyazma) and backed off.
you write

England fit in there.

and then you declare

Actually, I directly write that the influence of external forces on Finnish decisions is speculation

then further discussion (although I would like to ask a few more questions) is useless.

[Negro]

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Considering that first on the situation
In August-September they realized that the USSR would not lose (despite a number of disasters - Kyiv, Bryansk, Vyazma) and backed off.

Your alternative historical point of view contradicts known facts. Finland initially set itself limited goals, and one of its mistakes was being unclear on this issue. On the one hand, they declared a return to internationally recognized borders (cough, cough), on the other hand, they occupied half of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, because for now they give, we must take.

I don’t know - what I’m writing about - about the documentation of any agreements, but the correspondence between the leadership of Finland, Sweden, Great Britain and the State Department is quite open. Britain was neutral in the Soviet-Finnish war until December 41, the USA - throughout the war.

Moreover, it was precisely the seemingly inevitable defeat of the USSR that forced the Finns to take a more aggressive position until 43.

[Negro]

Quote: Not the fighter

Yes, they closed the encirclement of Leningrad, because of them many Leningraders died,

The encirclement of Leningrad was never closed. Google "road of life".

Quote: Not the fighter

There are even versions that in August-September a secret separate agreement was concluded between the USSR and Finland,

Between the USSR, England and Finland. The Finns did not block the northern supply route. Usually treaties with the USSR were a bad idea, but in this case Comrade. Stalin limited himself - that means something was stopping him.

[Hariton]

And with the Poles and Bulgarians and other bros, you sort of figured it out!?)

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Stalin needed Finland’s exit from the war and he got it, he needed a neutral country on the northern borders of the USSR and that’s what he got, but for God’s sake, how could he assume that his efforts were so mediocre and stupid about everything...t. Sorry.

[andrewkor]

Regarding Finland, I have already voiced my attitude to its history. I repeat it again. Following the results of the Northern War, Peter the Great returned the already conquered territory of Sweden and this was a mistake. It still had to be corrected after the next Russian-Swedish war in 1809. No “independence” , a special constitution, all fit for arms! Actively populate them with Russians, and at least with Old Believers, since they fled from power wherever they could. But this is already from alternative fiction. And now hit economically!

[Sergey Zhikharev]

Elizabeth, the Empress, also refused Finland (1743). Maybe there was a mistake that they added it in 1809?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Zhikharev

Elizabeth, the Empress, also refused Finland (1743). Maybe there was a mistake that they added it in 1809?

The most bitter thing is that no one annexed Finland as a state entity in 1809. The Swedes handed over the eastern Swedish provinces "in bulk" to the Empire. And already on the basis of this set, Alexander created the statehood of the VKF from scratch, later adding the Russian Vyborg province to the Finns, moving the border of the VKF to the outskirts of the capital.

[Nikolay Malyugin]

Since the existence of Finland, this country has always been governed by someone. In this case, Russia and Sweden. In 1940, the Finns signed a peace treaty under pressure from Sweden. Since Peter the Great’s time, there have been very strong Russian and Soviet ambassadors in Sweden. The world does not tolerate a vacuum. Here, on our part, much has been missed. And if so, then the other side will definitely become impudent.

[Luminman]

Quote: Nikolay Malyugin

The world does not tolerate a vacuum

After the collapse of the USSR, this vacuum was created not only in Finland. Just look at the map...

[Negro]

Quote: Nikolay Malyugin

In 1940, the Finns signed a peace treaty under pressure from Sweden.

Seriously? Sweden sent volunteers there in uniform. But in the spring, the Finns still lost the border battle, so they took advantage of the relatively good moment to limit losses.

[rotmistr60]

Why do Finns need Karelia?

Why is it clear? obtaining additional territory, as a rule, does not cause harm, but only benefit, especially if it is suggested by “senior comrades”. It is also clear why Finland suddenly became so bold and Russophobic immediately when deciding the issue of joining NATO.

We tear out the old seams and make new ones...

It’s just that these “new stitches” don’t go to the living, particularly in Finland - with pain and blood.

[Alex 1970]

Russia today has become for the West the very stumbling block that has become an insurmountable obstacle to the continued exploitation of the peoples of “third” countries and the policy of neo-colonialism Seriously? Is this our policy and ideology to protect the world from the “West”? Three times “Ha”, exactly the same with us, and everything that is happening today is another attempt to divide the world and spheres of influence behind which lies elementary loot. And there is no need to hang noodles here. The article is reminiscent of political studies in the army, just as boring and dull.

[parusnik]

Is this our policy and ideology to protect the world from the “West”?

You don't understand, this is a sacred thing. From the beginning, according to our president, Russia was not accepted into the Western bourgeoisie, although they had been asking for a long time, and now that they were not accepted, the question arose about protecting the world from the “West.”

[Alex 1970]

Of course we don't understand "this is different" I’m wondering, if they accepted, would they also broadcast that there was a jungle around? Well, as for me, articles like this are an order. There are elections ahead and no one has canceled the campaign.

[parusnik]

There are elections ahead and no one has canceled the campaign.

The hypocrisy amazes me... I remember the author was touched by the number of foreign cars in the courtyards of Russian cities, and now he writes about opposition to the West. Where the wind goes, there is smoke.

and if they accepted, would they also broadcast that there was a jungle around?

Nooo, they said that there was a Garden of Eden all around. Yes, you remember how it was. From the beginning, our good partners, then just Western partners, then partners with little understanding, and now not friendly partners... The key word is partners.

[Alex 1970]

around the Garden of Eden. He is still trying to do this, the article also says that our economy is more viable than the Western one. Either the person doesn’t go to stores, or he doesn’t know anything about parallel imports from the West, and this is also how victory is presented. And everything is fine, no dissonance It’s not the economy that’s stronger, it’s again from the “buy and sell” category, but we produce it ourselves, but what the heck, we’ll buy it.

[parusnik]

our economy is more viable

Increasing prices for food and the rest are called viability. As it is in the classic: “Go out to the Volga: whose groan is heard over the great Russian river? We call this groan a song - The barge haulers are walking with a towline!..” (c) They will probably ban it soon, for defamation of reality.. The title alone is worth it: “Reflections at the Front Entrance.”

[Alex 1970]

Well, the “banners” showed up, the minuses flew away. I also sometimes think, “the Internet remembers everything,” will they remember what we write here or not?

[PavelT]

The thing here is this: a complete reversal of OT Western "universal" values like it wasn't, it isn't.
There is just chatter that we, that Russia, that OUR ideology of traditional values ​​is BETTER than THEIR perverted ideology.

And at the same time: THEIR monetarism in the financial sector of the Russian Federation is fully supported, THEIR reliance on fiat currencies (the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, judging by Nabiulina’s statements, is afraid to collapse the dollar because it is sacred!) in the world, THEIR “international law” in the form of the UN, all sorts of IMF, WHO , UNESCO, OPCW, OSCE, etc. globalist organizations where Russia has no real influence or respect (they simply don’t give visas to the UN headquarters to ours) - there is almost no criticism of the UN in our media, our laws and criminal courts for some reason continue to follow THEIR values ​​imposed on us in the 90s (absence of the death penalty, for example, pandering to migrant criminals), in our Constitution of the Russian Federation the rights of a citizen of the Russian Federation still appear in the text AFTER “human rights” (read “migrant rights”), our Ministry of Foreign Affairs signs moronic globalist laws from the UN - for example, they quietly signed THEIR Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Legal Migration (A/RES/2018/73) in December 195, caved in to THEIR “green agenda”, signed THEIR Kyoto Protocol - not a single protest in the media, that we (or rather Putin and Medvedev) merged after several years of opposition to this THEIR theory of global warming precisely because of industrial gases... THEIR 100% European ideology humanism is still our everything and we must follow it, although what humanism is has always not been defined by us and now it is being defined/redefined as they need by THEY for us...

And also sometimes there are sporadic vysers in the style of terrified about the fact that "We are not like that!" is a moronic cry that justifies everything: from not destroying Ukrainian bridges on the Dnieper, to not eliminating obvious enemies of Russia abroad, as, for example, the Mossad does with the enemies of Israel...

[Hariton]

There is another logic. When the West was stronger, the Russian elite relied on it, when the West swayed and sought support in the East. This happened often, that’s why we survived in the middle of the continent

[parusnik]

A few days ago I spoke with a Finn, the owner of a small border hotel

I wonder what language? And why is this author drawn to vacation in an unfriendly country? Is the snow whiter in Finland than in Siberia?

[Unknown]

It's amazing how quickly we saw radicals in Suomi. And how quickly our media reacted to this. For some reason, before Finland joined NATO, we did not notice these very radicals or treated them calmly, realizing that in any country there is always a certain part of society consisting of the dissatisfied. Precisely the dissatisfied ones. It doesn’t matter what, it doesn’t matter what, but the main thing is that this needs to be changed urgently

They didn’t notice, or they didn’t want to notice, it’s not the same thing. You can also take it calmly, Finns are so “white and fluffy.” naive,
as actor Ville Haapasalo in the famous film. Ignorance of the Finns and their mentality is absolutely not like that. Most of their society does not feel towards Russia, Russians absolutely no sympathy. Finns always they remembered everything and did not forget, but hid their true face under imaginary good nature, which is what the current leadership of the Russian Federation fell for. In the USSR, the then leadership represented by I.V. Stalin was well aware of Finland's treachery.

Did the government and party do the right thing by declaring war on Finland? This question specifically concerns the Red Army.
Could it be possible to do without war? It seems to me that it was impossible. It was impossible to do without war. The war was necessary, since peace negotiations with Finland did not produce results, and the security of Leningrad had to be ensured, of course, because security is the security of our Fatherland. Not only because Leningrad represents 30-35 percent of the defense industry of our country and, therefore, the fate of our country depends on the integrity and safety of Leningrad, but also because Leningrad is the second capital of our country.

Yes L.I. Brezhnev fought, he knew first-hand how much blood the Finns had spoiled for us, so despite all his curtseys he was wary of Kekkonen. The LVO group was large on the border with the Finns, as a reminder and warning. And they were careful, remembered, waited for the right moment. Well, our president, who is constantly

And, as usual, our Western partners deceived us,"

and didn’t care about the fate of the city in which he was born, bought in and got NATO, 148 kilometers north of St. Petersburg. The Finnish army is combat-ready, motivated in the right direction, by providing its entire military infrastructure, the United States will big threat throughout the Northern Territory of the Russian Federation. Finland no way did not join NATO, if you are not confident in the weakness of the Russian Federation, the scavenger principle, you need to have time to tear off a piece for yourself.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Unknown

scavenger principle

Very accurate definition!

[Negro]

Quote: Unknown

Finland would never have joined NATO if it had not been confident in the weakness of the Russian Federation

I wouldn't call the events of 2022 a "weakness." Although in some sense this word is suitable.

Quote: Unknown

the principle of the scavenger, you have to have time to tear off a piece for yourself.

Are there pieces in Russia that could be of interest to one of the richest countries in Europe? Seriously?

[Unknown]

Quote: Negro

Are there pieces in Russia that could be of interest to one of the richest countries in Europe? Seriously?

And the ideas of panfinanism are still popular among Finns. The borders of Greater Finland will have to run from the Gulf of Finland to the White Sea. And she’s not that “richest”, especially in Europe.

[Negro]

Quote: Unknown

the ideas of panfinanism are still popular among Finns

These Finns with the ideas of pan-Finnishism, do they mainly live in Russian-language LiveJournal?

[Unknown]

Quote: Negro

These Finns with the ideas of pan-Finnishism, do they mainly live in Russian-language LiveJournal?

Really? Chat with the Finns over a bottle, you will hear a lot about “Russia”, you don’t even need to understand, just intonation and actions..

[Negro]

Quote: Unknown

Chat with the Finns over a bottle, you will hear a lot about “Russia”, you don’t even need to understand it, just intonation and actions..

Do you drink with Finns? Quite careless of them.

[vicking]

No, Finland joined NATO so quickly because... I was just very scared of the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent excesses and destruction; Please look at the survey results after 24.02.22/XNUMX/XNUMX.

[Vladimir80]

Quote: Unknown

Finland would never have joined NATO if it had not been confident in the weakness of the Russian Federation

+ 10000 !!!!

[Ryaruav]

What can we talk about, until 1917 the Finns had no independence, what is Karelia

[gsev]

Quote: Ryaruav

What can we talk about, until 1917 the Finns had no independence, what is Karelia

Finland had broad autonomy; for some time in the 19th century there were even Finnish military units.

[Soldatov V.]

Historically, nothing changes. There have been military threats all the time from the northwestern direction for several hundred years
I do not allow any victory for NATO, together with Finland and Sweden, over Russia.
But I admit that Finland will lose part of its territory. These are the northern territories and the construction of a canal from the White Sea to the Gulf of Bothnia. Plus a coastline of one hundred and two kilometers of the Gulf of Finland.
As in the proverb, a cat scratches its back.

[Grossvater]

It is clear that you have to be a very big idiot,

But in the West there are no problems with this!

[Knell wardenheart]

The Finns are exploiting the “Baltic scenario of action”, or its variation. As for what benefits they might get from this, that’s the question. By joining NATO, on the one hand, they, like the Baltic states, forestalled some possibility of “history repeating itself.” The strengthening of Russia historically sooner or later led to an increase in imperial pressure on these territories. Does this make sense now, in the era of nationalism and taking into account the same historical experience - I have doubts here. On the other hand, joining NATO is a self-declaration of the so-called “Western path of development.” peripheral states try to specify their choice of affiliation as much as possible.
As part of this, the Finns and Balts will inevitably have convulsive attempts to minimize ties, because in their minds we are the “other pole”.
As for the war with Finland and especially the attack of the Finns - well, the harp is vigorous, gentlemen, this is nonsense!
Yes, some part of Finnish society will sit and itch about historical issues. Yes, there will always be some freaks everywhere who want a “Greater Finland” or a “Greater Albania”, or anything great. A certain part of our society is very cannibalistic, just read the comments here on VO. So blood sausage lovers are everywhere, the question is their ability to influence politics, their percentage in society and the ability of the state itself.
Finland is not in the right state to go in and take something away.

[APASUS]

I always considered the Finns to be the most adequate of all the peoples of old Europe. Where did it all go? Yes, there is a part of the people there, up to 30%, who are nationalistic, but there was a culture of protest there too.
And now it’s just terrible what they’re promoting

[nikolaevskiy78]

We will most likely end up having the Baltic blocked. If we behaved like Iran, this would not be a question. And so, when the Finns are in NATO, and Sweden is almost in NATO, then we have a penny bottleneck for exit, which passes entirely through NATO’s economic zones.

[Soldatov V.]

If they block the Baltic, it will definitely be war under any government in Russia. It’s like under Peter the Great and Alexander the First. We will not cut a window, but a route to Europe and add a safe zone for Russia. Those who have a sense of self-preservation should give up everything and emigrate to Europe and America.

[nikolaevskiy78]

So you can block in different ways. The Balts will, for example, launch drones and blame it on the SBU, or something like that.

[Glagol1]

It is not so easy to block the straits. In fact, it is an act of war. Maybe someone is ready to take the risk, but there are also many who don’t want to. Moreover, after this, missiles can simply fly in such a way that oil will cost $200 per barrel.

[Glagol1]

If this flashing goes wrong somewhere and a big war breaks out, then there will be no future at all. What is happening now is the greatest risk to humanity in history. And this risk is promoted by the Anglo-Saxons, the most vile and vile ethnic group on the planet. If they feel like they are losing, they will push all the buttons.

[Soldatov V.]

If he is vile and vile, he is always a coward. And he will do anything to save his worthless life.

[gray]

Hello. The author of this article amused himself a little, especially: “they are now thirsty for revenge and the return of the “original Finnish territories.” These territories under Finnish rule were less than the independence of some.

[Fangaro]

Quote: parusnik

There are elections ahead and no one has canceled the campaign.

The hypocrisy amazes me... I remember the author was touched by the number of foreign cars in the courtyards of Russian cities, and now he writes about opposition to the West. Where the wind goes, there is smoke.

and if they accepted, would they also broadcast that there was a jungle around?

Nooo, they said that there was a Garden of Eden all around. Yes, you remember how it was. From the beginning, our good partners, then just Western partners, then partners with little understanding, and now not friendly partners... The key word is partners.

Then there will be hostile partners next? And during escalation, and enemy-partners?

[runway-1]

It's amazing how quickly we saw radicals in Suomi. And how quickly our media reacted to this. For some reason, before Finland joined NATO, we did not notice these very radicals or treated them calmly, realizing that in any country there is always a certain part of society consisting of the dissatisfied.

It's right.

Why are they trying to intimidate us?

It is truth too. But who exactly is trying?

Russia today has become for the West the very stumbling block that has become an insurmountable obstacle to the continued exploitation of the peoples of “third” countries and the policy of neo-colonialism. The North Military District clearly showed the Americans and Europeans the impossibility of resolving issues by military means in the modern world. Russia is successfully resisting the West.
Moreover, the Russian economy turned out to be more viable than the Western economy.

It sounds too self-confident and optimistic given almost 40% of the “power” part of our budget for this year and a noticeable increase in inflation, as well as the absence of full-fledged allies.

...from the Baltic extinctions. And they themselves know very well their place in both the EU and NATO. And they bark strictly at the command of the owners, realizing that if the Russian bear suddenly gets tired of it, he will simply eat them, and none of the owners will even try to save them.

Why then, despite many statements that in the Baltics, nationalists and neo-Nazis in power are brutally persecuting Russians, we did not do this?!

Look what Finns are doing today. Small jabs towards Russia, like closing the checkpoint...

The situation with the checkpoint is quite simple and understandable. Someone apparently decided to repeat the Belarusian “experience” and suddenly groups of illegal migrants from distant lands began to appear in our (regime) border zone with the goal of illegally moving to Northern Europe.

Now, if we proceed from this version of the development of events, we can assume, with great stretch, of course, that the conflict in Karelia is a diversionary blow.

The stretch is not just large (for a supposedly analytical article), it is cosmic in size...

[lynnot]

Let the Finns better learn Swedish and what restitution is.

[K-50]

Review the results of the war of 1939–1940. Why Finland needs Karelia

This “game” can be played by two people.
Why should dates revise the results? Russia can do this too.
For example, cut off Finland from the North, cut up “sturgeon” somewhere else.
So dates need to think very hard: is the long-term prosperity at hand worth the possible very negative consequences for Russia?

[Glagol1]

Playing together is not only fair, but also interesting, tactical nuclear weapons play for us, we have them, for the Finns...

[Artyom Savin]

Quote: Belisarius

Quote: Dutchman Michel

They destroyed him so much that they erected monuments to him and organized museums there.

When were monuments erected and museums organized? In 1948? In 1953? Maybe in 1984? You are simply trying to shift responsibility from the real culprits to Comrade Stalin.

Quote: Dutchman Michel

These “amazing people in power of the Russian Federation” just activated something that had been sitting inside every Finn for a long time

Do you know what sits inside every Finn? Don’t be offended, but what you are voicing is Nazism in its purest version, that is, the biologization of culture and the definition of the “original essence” of each nation. But in general, this is a continuation of the same line for you. Only now you are trying to make all the Finns guilty besides Comrade Stalin.
Anything to shield the real culprits.

Why does stating a fact cause such rejection? It is enough to look at the map (leaving out the history of relations starting with the Swedish-Novgorod terok, the past still does not determine the future) to see - Finland borders Norway, Sweden and Russia + the sea border with Estonia. Actually, these countries are potential opponents; there is simply no one else to attack Finland and nowhere else except the Martians. The likelihood of an attack from Sweden/Norway, I think, requires no comment. Estonia is not even funny. By the method of exclusion, the Russian Federation is the only real and theoretical threat to the security of Finland, 100 years ago, now, and in the future (if there will be Finland and the Russian Federation in the future. This is just a fact of life.

[nordscout]

I agree with Mr. Staver’s conclusions, in part.... The fact that Finland has “turned” into another NATO springboard in the North of Europe is a significant “merit” of us, Russia, no matter how strange and unpatriotic it may seem... Let's go in order:
1. For the last 30 years, Finland has been, for us, especially residents of North-West Russia, one of the “convenient” large European supermarkets with quality goods and products, relatively cheap and affordable real estate, which the Russian Federation has stopped paying attention to as a neutral capitalist country , with which you need to work 24/7, with all socio-political organizations and parties, trade unions, through the media, TV, radio, as the USSR worked with it, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Min. ext. bargaining, the Ministry of Culture, the Foreign Policy Department of the CPSU Central Committee, and even the Ministry of Defense...
2. Our foreign policy, in these years, was in line with the national “trend” - “not giving a damn” and survival in a new socio-economic formation (capitalism, in its most “extreme” forms), expressed in words - words, drawing “red lines" and admonishing everyone and everything to "live together and happily." Yes, certain circumstances forced us to “behave this way.” But! Europe “looked into the mouth” of the United States, absorbed, like a sponge, its rhetoric and “horror stories” regarding Russia - the result is obvious. Even the very cautious, pragmatic and once calmly neutral Finns stopped listening and hearing Russia....
3. The USSR was “collapsed” so quickly, so “calmly” for the West, and with such “pressure” from the ruling elite of the USSR and the progressive intelligentsia, with the silent participation of the working class of the USSR, that the Finns were forced to believe that their neighbor was not a superpower , behind whose back they were ready to hide, as a neutral-friendly country, and “an ear of clay”.... Well, then the Northern Military District, with all its “coverage” in the Western media..
And then the Finn wondered... Where to go for a small northern country with risky agriculture, a lack of natural resources (except for forests), and an established standard of living. Of course, only in NATO, under the “canopy of NATO bayonets”, in exchange for a partial loss of sovereignty and territory... I will express certain doubts regarding the “reformatting” of the Finn’s brains, in the manner of the Khokhlyatsky ones, since the mentality, the “cultural code”, theirs, much deeper, nationally justified. It is unlikely that the “uncles” from Brussels will persuade them (the Finns) to fight for Karelia. And the Finns know how to fight, especially on rough terrain, in forests, in the Arctic tundra with very low air temperatures and significant snow cover...

[S.Z.]

The reasons for neighbors' dissatisfaction are usually the behavior of the tenant himself.

[AC130 Gunship]

Well, what kind of nonsense are you talking about? If a bunch of some entities demand the return of Karelia or reconsider the sale of Alaska - this is only on the eve of April 1

[AC130 Gunship]

Quote from nordscout

I agree with Mr. Staver’s conclusions, in part.... The fact that Finland has “turned” into another NATO springboard in the North of Europe is a significant “merit” of us, Russia, no matter how strange and unpatriotic it may seem... Let's go in order:
1. For the last 30 years, Finland has been, for us, especially residents of North-West Russia, one of the “convenient” large European supermarkets with quality goods and products, relatively cheap and affordable real estate, which the Russian Federation has stopped paying attention to as a neutral capitalist country , with which you need to work 24/7, with all socio-political organizations and parties, trade unions, through the media, TV, radio, as the USSR worked with it, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Min. ext. bargaining, the Ministry of Culture, the Foreign Policy Department of the CPSU Central Committee, and even the Ministry of Defense...
2. Our foreign policy, in these years, was in line with the national “trend” - “not giving a damn” and survival in a new socio-economic formation (capitalism, in its most “extreme” forms), expressed in words - words, drawing “red lines" and admonishing everyone and everything to "live together and happily." Yes, certain circumstances forced us to “behave this way.” But! Europe “looked into the mouth” of the United States, absorbed, like a sponge, its rhetoric and “horror stories” regarding Russia - the result is obvious. Even the very cautious, pragmatic and once calmly neutral Finns stopped listening and hearing Russia....
3. The USSR was “collapsed” so quickly, so “calmly” for the West, and with such “pressure” from the ruling elite of the USSR and the progressive intelligentsia, with the silent participation of the working class of the USSR, that the Finns were forced to believe that their neighbor was not a superpower , behind whose back they were ready to hide, as a neutral-friendly country, and “an ear of clay”.... Well, then the Northern Military District, with all its “coverage” in the Western media..
And then the Finn wondered... Where to go for a small northern country with risky agriculture, a lack of natural resources (except for forests), and an established standard of living. Of course, only in NATO, under the “canopy of NATO bayonets”, in exchange for a partial loss of sovereignty and territory... I will express certain doubts regarding the “reformatting” of the Finn’s brains, in the manner of the Khokhlyatsky ones, since the mentality, the “cultural code”, theirs, much deeper, nationally justified. It is unlikely that the “uncles” from Brussels will persuade them (the Finns) to fight for Karelia. And the Finns know how to fight, especially on rough terrain, in forests, in the Arctic tundra with very low air temperatures and significant snow cover...

By joining NATO, Finland did not lose any “partial sovereignty”. Just like Kyrgyzstan, having joined the CSTO

[S.Z.]

Quote: AC130 Ganship

By joining NATO, Finland did not lose any “partial sovereignty”. Just like Kyrgyzstan, having joined the CSTO

This is more of a question of terminology. By concluding any agreement, the party begins to limit its actions, since it is now forced to take into account the counterparty, that is, it can no longer act in all cases as it wants.

Is such a restriction a “partial loss of sovereignty”? I don't dare say.

[Alexey Alekseev_5]

Well, if they want to reconsider, let’s respect the dates. Let's reconsider. I think that the Russian Armed Forces base in Porkkala-Udd won't hurt us. Well, we can push the border even further. Yes, I almost forgot - Sveaborg certainly won't hurt

[Viktor Sergeev]

Reconsider the results of the war of 1939-1945, just like that.

[Navy7981]

Well, with proper “luck” on the Finnish side and they manage to revise the results of the Northern War, the Finnish border will move another 100-200 km deep into Finnish territory. It is rightly said that the degradation of Western politicians is occurring at incredible speed. In principle, they can try to calculate events at least until the evening??? every current day?

[Ivanov IV]

“Review the results of the war of 1939–1940.”......
I AM FOR!!!
If even then the Finns would have been rolled into the ground, and this could (and should) have been done, then how many Problems would have been solved, how many Lives of our People would have been saved
The current situation confirms the truth of this.
At this point, Russia must express its opinion Unambiguously and Definitely:
In the event of a conflict with Finland, there will be no SVO. There will be no attacks, there will be no assaults.
All military and infrastructure points in Finland will be attacked.
All available ICBMs and tactical nuclear weapons.
So to speak:
A “black” zone on the Russian border will be created and formalized.
And let's forget about the "fins"....