the_dunk_tank

lmao that answer is so funny, they assiduously stack up this case for Molotov-Rippentrop, then at the summation of western failures they just condemn the USSR anyways. real 'lead a horse to water' hours.

ah yeah Finland the ultra-right white government was totally unsympathetic to the germans, the soviets 'forced' them to be nazis. come the fuck on. how is the continuation war not proving the soviets correct? because they drew 'first blood' and the poor Fins just had to revenge themselves... well past the ceded territory and up to a major russian city where they aided in the deaths of a million innocent civilians. because the disposition of the finnish government (and polish one for that matter) are somehow irrelevant when the same fucking people that opposed the USSR during the civil war were in charge

what's even funnier is they trip into one of my opinions i like to browbeat about, i actually do agree with the assessment that M-R was disadvantageous to the USSR overall too, but not through this silly conception of the sacred borders of (ultra right-wing, barely republican states)---just simply because the Red Army could've whipped through prussia while the germans were committed in France, which would have been better for everyone. it's understandable and explainable why the soviets didn't make that decision, but it still would've been better in hindsight.

I read through several comments by the user, and while undoubtably knowledgeable, I find their key moral judgments to be lacking support. Tons of citations and dates for the mundane stuff, mixed with “[the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact] was an act of imperialism against unwilling populations, worthy of a capitalist colonial power and distinctly unsocialist in nature”. I don’t know the history well enough to rebut that claim but it is frustrating to read a compelling narrative punctuated with unsupported claims snuck in.

The Winter War was a disaster that not only did not bring the Soviets any tangible gain, but it brought into the war a Finnish state that quickly became the second-most potent Axis Power; a state that almost certainly would not have joined World War II had it not been for the Soviet landgrab.

Bullshit. Invading the USSR was a key part of the German plans for Lebensraum, and guess what, Finland is geographically important for that end. There is no WW2 that does not involve Finland or the Baltics. Therefore the USSR was proactive in these states long before 1939, for easily understood defense purposes.

While the Winter War was a heavy loss for the Soviets, it wasn't without tangible gain. The 1918 Finnish Civil War was a proxy war between the German Empire and the nascent Soviet Russia; the Finnish combatants on both sides were minimally trained, except for the Jäger units trained in Germany. The leader of the German-allied White Army was C. G. Mannerheim, a military officer from the former Russian Empire who was an anti-communist monarchist. This same Mannerheim, who collaborated with Germany and the Finnish bourgeoisie against the Finnish proletariat, was unsurprisingly chummy with Hitler. In fact, the only known recording of Hitler speaking in a casual tone of voice occurred when Hitler visited Mannerheim for his 75th birthday. The pattern of behaviors in European states between 1917 and 1939 is a pattern of anticommunism and attempted subversion of the USSR. The only historians who don't grasp this are ones ideologically committed to an anticommunist interpretation.

Certainly not in 1941–42, when the Soviet Union's Red Army took more casualties in a twelve-month period than any other military force in history.

As for 1945? Sure, the Soviet Union won that war. At a cost of 27 million deaths and tens of millions of injuries, which irreparably put the USSR behind for the upcoming Cold War, into which the United States strode with a comparatively tiny 400,000 wartime deaths and an essentially undamaged economy on the homefront.

This is their explanation as to why the soviets did the wrong thing. Like, WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHY ARE PEOPLE TAKING YOU SERIOUSLY COMPARING A GROUND INVASION WITH THE AIM OF EXTERMINATION TO FUCKING US CASUALTIES

Go ahead and compare nazi casualties and military presence between the fronts as well you absolute fuckhead. I guess the soviets were silly not considering being on a different fucking continent in order to protect their industry.

~just two replies later~~

That is not a very charitable way to phrase it. Stalin did what he believed at the time would net the Soviet Union the biggest benefit.

My burner account just got banned from r/askhistorians because I mentioned that there are Nazis in Ukraine. Those people are full of shit. They also don’t view history as a science. It’s really just based on vibes for them.

It’s not worth engaging with people who refuse to learn history and insist on regurgitating NATO propaganda.

A Reddit link was detected in your post. Here are links to the same location on Teddit and Libreddit, which are Reddit frontends that protect your privacy.

• teddit.zaggy.nl
• teddit.hostux.net
• r.darklab.sh
• reddit.smnz.de