231–240 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Hence the name: Finnish Defence Forces. "Wehrmacht" means something along the lines of the "defense force" too. Not saying the rest of your reasoning is wrong, just pointing out that calling your army a "defense force" doesn't necessarily mean that it's used for defense only...
Does it? I thought "Wehr" translated to "War". (Disclaimer: I don't actually speak German.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the Polish pact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggr... Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJwoygYdTmY is an exchange between Tusk and Putin on the topic. I haven't found a better video. About the Molotov negotiation, it is in the book by Nikolai Starikov, Who set Hitler against Stalin?, (ISBN 978-5-496-00332-2). It is in Russian, unfortunately. Excerpts have been translated to English…
You're confusing non-aggression pacts with MR pact, which in fact DIVIDED Europe between two different dictators and basically lead to WW2. Also that guy Starikov is nota a historian, but an ultra-right nationalist playing current Kremlin tune. So his "works" should be taken with a truckloads of salt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but somehow magically they stopped at Curzon line. I.e. they took back exactly the same lands, that Poles took them 20 years before. At the dawn of WW2, Poles weren't innocent bystander either. They happily tooks parts of Czechoslovakia.
What "same lands" are you talking about? Poland had same rights as Bolsheviks to parts of Russian Empire. If you don't know, Lenin proclaimed that Bolsheviks aren't successors to Tsarist Russia.
Some would not fight because they are immigrants.
Some would not fight because their country is full of immigrants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia has been invaded every 80-100 years for the last 1000 years. I have understanding for them, it is already some 75 years since the last one.
Russia has waged dozens of aggressive wars during that period, including 2 since 2008
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-G...
Extra discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5q433o/percentage_... I am really curious about a more thourough breakdown of these numbers. I doubt immigrants would have the same interest in war as the natives.
Counterpoint: during the occupation of France by the Nazis, a disproportionate amount of the French resistance were immigrants[1]. In fact the second (after Jean Moulin) most famous group that was caught was the "Manouchian network", whose members were almost all immigrants. Likewise the Free French Forces (i.e. French military who refused to surrender in 1940) operating under British command were at least two-third…
"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing non-aggression pacts with MR pact, which in fact DIVIDED Europe between two different dictators and basically lead to WW2. Also that guy Starikov is nota a historian, but an ultra-right nationalist playing current Kremlin tune. So his "works" should be taken with a truckloads of salt.
Nice ad-hominem and credentialism you have there, do you have anything that refutes his points ?
Or you plan to detail the discussion by switching context to talking about far-right fiction?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What "same lands" are you talking about? Poland had same rights as Bolsheviks to parts of Russian Empire. If you don't know, Lenin proclaimed that Bolsheviks aren't successors to Tsarist Russia.
East of Curzon line. You know, that agreement that was made after WW1 (and therefore after USSR was established) and broken by the 1920-war?
Besides, as I said - Poland had the same rights to these territories, so it was a fair game of whoever captured them first.
And if we're talking about broken agreements - Bolsheviks broke that agreement first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finland participated in the WW2, moreover, also on the side that lost the war.
Of course one should remember that Finland lost WW2 "better" than most countries won it. In fact, many Finns will say that it was a victory. While the war was brutal, Finland is one of the few countries where the casualities were mostly limited to the military. There were only ~2000 civilian deaths. Finland was never occupied[1] and there was no large scale bombing of cities. Finland remained an independent democracy…
Finland also lost Karelia and other territories in the Winter war. Nominally a different war, but for finns it's a one long conflict with Stalin's Russia.