Stalin is the reason we don’t live under a flag with a swastika under it today. Perhaps you would not even be alive typing this if it weren’t for Stalin. The war industry of the USSR in this time is well understood. The USSR was not ready for a war with Germany, but they could be in a few years time. This is evidenced by the fact that the Nazis made it all the way to Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad, before the growing war industry of the Soviet Union was able to catch up and supercede the Nazis’.
Without the M-R pact, Barbarossa would have begun much more to the east. Perhaps that would have given the Nazis the upper hand enough to have defeated the USSR. With hindsight, the M-R pact was strategically the right decision.
So do we call this Nazi collaboration? That would be narrow-sighted, because they took the correct strategy to beat the Nazis. In Finland’s case, they never had the goal of defeating the Nazis. Even after signing a peace with the USSR, they never turned on the Nazis like other eastern european countries did.
No, Finland’s goals were to take territory, and not just the territory they had lost, they wanted to annex all of Karelia we know. A Finish historian even, Lauri Hannikainen writes:
Finnish forces did not stop at the old border but occupied Eastern (Soviet) Karelia with a desire eventually to annex it. By that measure, Finland joined as Germany’s ally in its war of aggression against the Soviet Union in violation of international law. In their strong reliance on Germany, the Finnish leaders made some very questionable decisions without listening to warnings from Western States about possible negative consequences.
So the viewpoint you are espousing in this thread is historical revisionism even by western academic standards.
You mean what happened when the USSR kicked finlands ass so hard it switched sides? Don’t worry, it happened to lots of once fascist countries in eastern europe at the time.
the lapland war barely had any casualties for either side, not breaching 5k. It was a barely a skirmish for 7 months overall, you’re acting as if it was some great betrayal.
I did not claim that, I was defending a comrade’s claim about it. But now I said it, and I call the lapland war a pathetic war against nazis, and not even close to what they did to the soviets. It was just their participation points to make sure the USSR would not cut their country into even smaller pieces. They should have shot all their pro-nazi officials, in politics and government. and committed attacks on all nazi assets in the region. They should have helped in attacking the Nazi coast, or assisting the Red Army. At least. Leningrad remembers. Finland was never a main player in the anti-fascist front. The Yugoslav Partisans killed more nazis in that time than the Finns. MORE GERMANS DIED TO THE ALBANIANS THAN THE FINNS!
The alternative was the Nazis getting 100% of Poland
It doesn’t change that Stalin was perfect fine being… what do they call it, a Nazi collaborator?
Stalin is the reason we don’t live under a flag with a swastika under it today. Perhaps you would not even be alive typing this if it weren’t for Stalin. The war industry of the USSR in this time is well understood. The USSR was not ready for a war with Germany, but they could be in a few years time. This is evidenced by the fact that the Nazis made it all the way to Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad, before the growing war industry of the Soviet Union was able to catch up and supercede the Nazis’.
Without the M-R pact, Barbarossa would have begun much more to the east. Perhaps that would have given the Nazis the upper hand enough to have defeated the USSR. With hindsight, the M-R pact was strategically the right decision.
So do we call this Nazi collaboration? That would be narrow-sighted, because they took the correct strategy to beat the Nazis. In Finland’s case, they never had the goal of defeating the Nazis. Even after signing a peace with the USSR, they never turned on the Nazis like other eastern european countries did.
No, Finland’s goals were to take territory, and not just the territory they had lost, they wanted to annex all of Karelia we know. A Finish historian even, Lauri Hannikainen writes:
So the viewpoint you are espousing in this thread is historical revisionism even by western academic standards.
deleted by creator
You mean what happened when the USSR kicked finlands ass so hard it switched sides? Don’t worry, it happened to lots of once fascist countries in eastern europe at the time.
deleted by creator
the lapland war barely had any casualties for either side, not breaching 5k. It was a barely a skirmish for 7 months overall, you’re acting as if it was some great betrayal.
deleted by creator
I did not claim that, I was defending a comrade’s claim about it. But now I said it, and I call the lapland war a pathetic war against nazis, and not even close to what they did to the soviets. It was just their participation points to make sure the USSR would not cut their country into even smaller pieces. They should have shot all their pro-nazi officials, in politics and government. and committed attacks on all nazi assets in the region. They should have helped in attacking the Nazi coast, or assisting the Red Army. At least. Leningrad remembers. Finland was never a main player in the anti-fascist front. The Yugoslav Partisans killed more nazis in that time than the Finns. MORE GERMANS DIED TO THE ALBANIANS THAN THE FINNS!