the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
I think the civil war shows this wasn’t the case for Finland though. Helsinki was a stronghold for the Reds for most of the war, while the Whites were out west in Vaasa. The railroads were essential to the civil war, and probably would be in this scenario too. So the question would become, assuming the Soviets took Helsinki (presumably by water) could they defend it for any meaningful duration against a pissed off government-in-exile with a reasonable mandate among the population to kick out the invaders? They could bring in trainload after trainload of supplies vs a limited resupply to Helsinki by water. Or, if the Finns gave up on Helsinki, they would definitely be motivated to let the Germans in through somewhere else like Turku for a land invasion.