Repatriation of the Cossack's, justified?

[Shofercia]

So basically you're confirmed that you were pissed off at the USSR for the Winter War, and assisted Nazis in starving out Leningrad, to get vengeance for the Winter War. Yeah, that's pretty much it. Still not seeing your whole "oh, but we had to defend ourselves during a war that we started" argument.

How about you tell me why Finns should have felt confident that neutrality would protect them from another Soviet invasion? You said the Continuation War wouldn't have happened if Finland hadn't allied with Germany, so prove it. I myself believe that Finland had a pretty good reason to fear an attack from USSR in 1941: The fact that USSR attacked, unprovoked, in 1939.

So you fear that someone will attack you, and thus you justify attacking them? Brilliant logic! It worked wonders for Dubya in Iraq, which is now a model democracy in the Middle East with no sectarian violence whatsoever, oh wait...

The Red Army was tired after WWII. It's a lot easier to motivate an army when you're being attacked, than when you're not being attacked. Out of the Six Soviet Tank Armies, only one took part in the Soviet-Japanese War of 1945. It was also the newest Tank Army. The major reason that the USSR engaged Japan, was to show that Stalin was a man of his word, or at the very least what he thought his word was. But hey, once a war's ongoing, why not take some land? None of this would've applied to Finland. Without Finnish intervention, the Murmansk-Leningrad railway would've been open throughout the war. What would be the point of the USSR attacking Finland, had the Finns not started the Continuation War? Land - hey, USSR got plenty of land from Nazi Germany. Power - nah, I think the USSR had enough. What was the reason? The Winter War was started to give Leningrad more room in case the city was attacked, a very wise decision in hindsight. Give me a single reason why USSR would want Finnish land in 1945, if Finland didn't attack the USSR in the Continuation War?

Additionally, if you bombarded, but allowed food in, there would still be less deaths, and you wouldn't be in cahoots with Nazis for starving a civilian city.

Civilian city, headquarters of the Red Army's baltic fleet, industrial center with major arms manufacturing... There are a couple of things on that list that I think made Leningrad a valid military target. A better example of a civilian target, I think, would be the town of Seitajärvi in Finnish Lapland, attacked by Soviet partisans operating behind enemy lines. Maybe they mistook the town for a supplier for the Finnish reindeer cavalry?

Leningrad was primarily a civilian city. The fact that it had military factories, doesn't justify assisting a blockade that was specifically designed to kill off civilians by starvation. The very fact that I have to explain this, is disturbing.

[Xathranaar]

Most of the time I don't agree with repatriation to totalitarian dictatorships. But those people were working with the Nazis, so I think it's okay that they died in Siberian gulags.

Because working with the Nazis is bad.

If your options are are Nazis or Stalinist Soviets, well... that sort of speaks for itself doesn't it?

My sympathies to all Finns, by the way.

[Shofercia]

Most of the time I don't agree with repatriation to totalitarian dictatorships. But those people were working with the Nazis, so I think it's okay that they died in Siberian gulags.

Because working with the Nazis is bad.

If your options are are Nazis or Stalinist Soviets, well... that sort of speaks for itself doesn't it?

My sympathies to all Finns, by the way.

If I was giving out sympathies in WWII, I'd give mine to quite a few civvies, I wouldn't just limit it to one specific group...

[Xathranaar]

If your options are are Nazis or Stalinist Soviets, well... that sort of speaks for itself doesn't it?

My sympathies to all Finns, by the way.

If I was giving out sympathies in WWII, I'd give mine to quite a few civvies, I wouldn't just limit it to one specific group...

I was speaking specifically with regard to groups that had to choose between fighting alongside one or the other, and this was clear from the context of my statement.

But I can play this game too, "if I were giving out sympathies, I'd give them to all war victims throughout history, I wouldn't just limit it to one single war." See what I did there?

[Shofercia]

If I was giving out sympathies in WWII, I'd give mine to quite a few civvies, I wouldn't just limit it to one specific group...

I was speaking specifically with regard to groups that had to choose between fighting alongside one or the other, and this was clear from the context of my statement.

But I can play this game too, "if I were giving out sympathies, I'd give them to all war victims throughout history, I wouldn't just limit it to one single war." See what I did there?

The problem is that you think groups had to choose between one or the other. Interestingly enough, the neutrality option was available to the group you're sympathizing with. Usually no war is better than all out war...

[Xathranaar]

I was speaking specifically with regard to groups that had to choose between fighting alongside one or the other, and this was clear from the context of my statement.

But I can play this game too, "if I were giving out sympathies, I'd give them to all war victims throughout history, I wouldn't just limit it to one single war." See what I did there?

The problem is that you think groups had to choose between one or the other. Interestingly enough, the neutrality option was available to the group you're sympathizing with. Usually no war is better than all out war...

Ha! Yeah, Russia totally would have left Finland alone if they had just been neutral.

Russia started that war.

[San Thomas]

So you fear that someone will attack you, and thus you justify attacking them? Brilliant logic! It worked wonders for Dubya in Iraq, which is now a model democracy in the Middle East with no sectarian violence whatsoever, oh wait...

You're right, that is eerily similar. Especially the part how in 2000 Iraq invaded the U.S. and took most of west coast and NYC as war reparations. I'm also reminded of how the U.S. turned the other cheek after Pearl Harbor, or how USSR let bygones be bygones after Barbarossa had failed.

The Red Army was tired after WWII.

I'm sure they were, but 1941 wasn't after WWII. Barbarossa hadn't even started yet. At the time Soviet Union was fully expecting a war with Germany and they were gearing up for one.

The Winter War was started to give Leningrad more room in case the city was attacked, a very wise decision in hindsight. Give me a single reason why USSR would want Finnish land in 1945, if Finland didn't attack the USSR in the Continuation War?

Looked at a map recently? Do you think St. Petersburg is comfortably distant from the Finnish border now? Not to mention that if giving breathing room to Leningrad was their reason to attack Finland, why did they try to conquer the whole country, when surely annexing Karelia would have been enough? Why did they move towards Oulu? Why did they invade Lapland? You're saying USSR had no interest in occupying Finland, the whole of Winter War shows you're completely and utterly wrong.

Leningrad was primarily a civilian city. The fact that it had military factories, doesn't justify assisting a blockade that was specifically designed to kill off civilians by starvation. The very fact that I have to explain this, is disturbing.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but the nature of WW2 was pretty much that civilians got the worst of it. What happened to civilians in Leningrad was horrible, but the siege itself had a clear military purpose to it. By the way, you didn't tell me how you feel about Soviet atrocities which had no military purpose to them at all. Soviet partisans slaughtering entire villages in Finland? Note, not villages with military outposts in them, just villages. How about the mass rapes and slaughter of civilians in Berlin and elsewhere in Soviet occupied Germany, after Germany had already surrendered? The mass executions of POWs all over the place, such as Katyn massacre in Poland? Do these make your blood boil the same way the Siege of Leningrad seems to do?

[Shofercia]

The problem is that you think groups had to choose between one or the other. Interestingly enough, the neutrality option was available to the group you're sympathizing with. Usually no war is better than all out war...

Ha! Yeah, Russia totally would have left Finland alone if they had just been neutral.

Russia started that war.

Finland started the Continuation War

Please check your facts before you post.

So you fear that someone will attack you, and thus you justify attacking them? Brilliant logic! It worked wonders for Dubya in Iraq, which is now a model democracy in the Middle East with no sectarian violence whatsoever, oh wait...

You're right, that is eerily similar. Especially the part how in 2000 Iraq invaded the U.S. and took most of west coast and NYC as war reparations. I'm also reminded of how the U.S. turned the other cheek after Pearl Harbor, or how USSR let bygones be bygones after Barbarossa had failed.

Thank you for making my point. I stated that it's retarded, idiotic and moronic to attack someone else to prevent them from attacking you. You disagreed, and cited Pearl Harbor as an example. Just so you know, in Pearl Harbor, Japan was the one who attacked the US, because they followed the same logic that you're defending. How'd that one turn out for Japan? How'd the whole Continuation War turn out for Finland? What was that? Oh yeah, in both cases, they lost, and lost land as a result.

The Red Army was tired after WWII.

I'm sure they were, but 1941 wasn't after WWII. Barbarossa hadn't even started yet. At the time Soviet Union was fully expecting a war with Germany and they were gearing up for one.

If the USSR was gearing up for war with Nazi Germany, don't ya think that they wouldn't have taken on Finland? Cause ya know, at the time, Stalin had this whole "one war at a time" policy. Note how the USSR fought with Japan only after Nazi Germany was soundly defeated.

The Winter War was started to give Leningrad more room in case the city was attacked, a very wise decision in hindsight. Give me a single reason why USSR would want Finnish land in 1945, if Finland didn't attack the USSR in the Continuation War?

Looked at a map recently? Do you think St. Petersburg is comfortably distant from the Finnish border now? Not to mention that if giving breathing room to Leningrad was their reason to attack Finland, why did they try to conquer the whole country, when surely annexing Karelia would have been enough? Why did they move towards Oulu? Why did they invade Lapland? You're saying USSR had no interest in occupying Finland, the whole of Winter War shows you're completely and utterly wrong.

Karelia was annexed as a result of the Winter War. Initially USSR's demands were very reasonable. Finland said no. They went to war. As a result of winning the Winter War, USSR took more land than originally demanded. The original demand was reasonable:

The Soviets demanded that the border between the USSR and Finland on the Karelian Isthmus be moved westward to a point only 30 km (19 mi) east of Viipuri and that the Finns destroy all existing fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus. They also demanded the cession of islands in the Gulf of Finland as well as the Kalastajansaarento peninsula. Furthermore, the Finns would have to lease the Hanko Peninsula for 30 years and permit the Soviets to establish a military base there. In exchange, the Soviet Union would cede two municipalities with twice the territory demanded from Finland.

That's not exactly unreasonable, especially considering the threat that Nazi Germany posed to the USSR. Especially since the USSR would cede twice the territory demanded from Finland, and Hanko Peninsula would just be a lease. If the Soviets were just land hungry monsters, as you desperately try to portray them, why give back twice the land demanded?

Leningrad was primarily a civilian city. The fact that it had military factories, doesn't justify assisting a blockade that was specifically designed to kill off civilians by starvation. The very fact that I have to explain this, is disturbing.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but the nature of WW2 was pretty much that civilians got the worst of it. What happened to civilians in Leningrad was horrible, but the siege itself had a clear military purpose to it. By the way, you didn't tell me how you feel about Soviet atrocities which had no military purpose to them at all. Soviet partisans slaughtering entire villages in Finland? Note, not villages with military outposts in them, just villages. How about the mass rapes and slaughter of civilians in Berlin and elsewhere in Soviet occupied Germany, after Germany had already surrendered? The mass executions of POWs all over the place, such as Katyn massacre in Poland? Do these make your blood boil the same way the Siege of Leningrad seems to do?

You're telling me that not letting food into a starving city has a military purpose? WTF?! Yeah, all of those things, that you listed, they were horrible, and I'm admitting that they were horrible, and moving on. I'm not the one claiming that they're military targets - you are! You're still trying to sell the Continuation War as a necessity. Just admit that you were wrong and move on. Geez, not rocket science.

[San Thomas]

Thank you for making my point. I stated that it's retarded, idiotic and moronic to attack someone else to prevent them from attacking you. You disagreed, and cited Pearl Harbor as an example. Just so you know, in Pearl Harbor, Japan was the one who attacked the US, because they followed the same logic that you're defending. How'd that one turn out for Japan? How'd the whole Continuation War turn out for Finland? What was that? Oh yeah, in both cases, they lost, and lost land as a result.

I think I'm done here. If you really think that Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was the same as what Finland did in the Continuation War, then you're living in some freaky alternate universe where the Winter War never happened. As long as we're living in different universes, I don't think anything's going to come out of this debate.

[Shofercia]

Thank you for making my point. I stated that it's retarded, idiotic and moronic to attack someone else to prevent them from attacking you. You disagreed, and cited Pearl Harbor as an example. Just so you know, in Pearl Harbor, Japan was the one who attacked the US, because they followed the same logic that you're defending. How'd that one turn out for Japan? How'd the whole Continuation War turn out for Finland? What was that? Oh yeah, in both cases, they lost, and lost land as a result.

I think I'm done here. If you really think that Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was the same as what Finland did in the Continuation War, then you're living in some freaky alternate universe where the Winter War never happened. As long as we're living in different universes, I don't think anything's going to come out of this debate.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, because they feared that US would attack them otherwise, and gain a decisive advantage. If Japan could've taken out all of the aircraft carriers, they would've been able to control the Pacific for a few years; instead the American Carriers got them at Midway. Thus Japan made a pre-emptive strike against the US.

In your very own post, you claimed that Finland made a pre-emptive strike against the USSR in the Continuation War:

How about you tell me why Finns should have felt confident that neutrality would protect them from another Soviet invasion? You said the Continuation War wouldn't have happened if Finland hadn't allied with Germany, so prove it. I myself believe that Finland had a pretty good reason to fear an attack from USSR in 1941: The fact that USSR attacked, unprovoked, in 1939.

Once again, pre-emption has yet to work. And if Finland attacked for the reason stated above by you, then yes, there's little difference; a pre-emptive attack is a pre-emptive attack, and those are usually destined to fail.

[Forster Keys]

Not a fan of giving anyone to Stalin.

[Shofercia]

Not a fan of giving anyone to Stalin.

What about Hitler? Would you give Hitler to Stalin?

[Forster Keys]

Not a fan of giving anyone to Stalin.

What about Hitler? Would you give Hitler to Stalin?

Only if he agreed to dress up in a leotard, hop in a four tier birthday cake, and burst out upon a prearranged signal to sing "Happy Birthday Comrade General Secretary".

[Shofercia]

What about Hitler? Would you give Hitler to Stalin?

Only if he agreed to dress up in a leotard, hop in a four tier birthday cake, and burst out upon a prearranged signal to sing "Happy Birthday Comrade General Secretary".

Done

[Forster Keys]

Only if he agreed to dress up in a leotard, hop in a four tier birthday cake, and burst out upon a prearranged signal to sing "Happy Birthday Comrade General Secretary".

Done

Quickly! Buy the rights to that movie!

[San Thomas]

Karelia was annexed as a result of the Winter War. Initially USSR's demands were very reasonable. Finland said no. They went to war. As a result of winning the Winter War, USSR took more land than originally demanded. The original demand was reasonable:

The Soviets demanded that the border between the USSR and Finland on the Karelian Isthmus be moved westward to a point only 30 km (19 mi) east of Viipuri and that the Finns destroy all existing fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus. They also demanded the cession of islands in the Gulf of Finland as well as the Kalastajansaarento peninsula. Furthermore, the Finns would have to lease the Hanko Peninsula for 30 years and permit the Soviets to establish a military base there. In exchange, the Soviet Union would cede two municipalities with twice the territory demanded from Finland.

That's not exactly unreasonable, especially considering the threat that Nazi Germany posed to the USSR. Especially since the USSR would cede twice the territory demanded from Finland, and Hanko Peninsula would just be a lease. If the Soviets were just land hungry monsters, as you desperately try to portray them, why give back twice the land demanded?

I know I said I was done, but I'm a weak weak man and that's way too rich to let slid. So I guess now we're responsible for the Winter War too. Couple of things about that.

"Existing fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus" would mean the Mannerheim line, right? Our strongest defense during the Winter War, which the Soviets weren't able to break for the whole 105 days? Gee, I wonder why the Soviets might have wanted us to tear it down before the war. The whole thing might look a bit suspicious if the Soviets had already signed a secret pact with the Germans, where they essentially staked out Finland as Soviet territory. But since that wasn't the case, I'm sure the Soviets were just concerned that a line of pillboxes might march right in to Leningrad.

[Gokturkistan]

Can't necessarily blame them entirely, they weren't separate units under their own command. Do I find it okay? No, but their options where pretty bleak at the time.

Yes, I can. Seeing as most Cossack's did the right thing and became Red Army Cossack's

Exactly. The "all Cossacks were oppressed" and "all Cossacks were Whites/Nazis" is a myth (along with much of what is "known" in the West about Soviet history) most were Reds.

The Cossacks that became Nazi collaborators were the "White" Cossacks that supported the Tsar and attacked the "Reds" before there was any chance to "oppress the Cossacks". The repatriation of most traitors was justified; they weren't JUST traitors to their own people they were NAZI collaborators. The Whites killed many civilians in the Civil War and then allied with a power that was RACIALLY against Slavic people and issued an order to exterminate them.

It is funny how the West accepts nonsense written by intelligence agents who worked specifically in a unit disseminating Anti-Soviet propaganda like Robert Conquest who inflates the numbers of those killed by the Soviets by taking those who were killed by Nazis, in famines (a common occurrence in that part of the world for centuries) etc and yet the Good ol' Nazi supporting Whites are heroes and freedom fighters. I'm not shedding any tears over them.

[Xathranaar]

I can't help but love this:

Finland started the Continuation War

Please check your facts before you post.

"Yeah, well that may be. But they started the second one! The one where they tried to take back the land we stole from them and little else!"

My facts are fine, thank you.

[Shofercia]

I can't help but love this:

Finland started the Continuation War

Please check your facts before you post.

"Yeah, well that may be. But they started the second one! The one where they tried to take back the land we stole from them and little else!"

My facts are fine, thank you.

No, your facts are not fine. If they tried to take back little else, as you mistakenly allege, why did the Finns block the Murmansk-Leningrad railroad?

And the post that you were responding to, that one talked about the Continuation War, which the Finns started. Additionally, Finns took part in the Siege of Leningrad, and I don't recall Leningrad, ever, being a part of Finland.

Karelia was annexed as a result of the Winter War. Initially USSR's demands were very reasonable. Finland said no. They went to war. As a result of winning the Winter War, USSR took more land than originally demanded. The original demand was reasonable:



That's not exactly unreasonable, especially considering the threat that Nazi Germany posed to the USSR. Especially since the USSR would cede twice the territory demanded from Finland, and Hanko Peninsula would just be a lease. If the Soviets were just land hungry monsters, as you desperately try to portray them, why give back twice the land demanded?

I know I said I was done, but I'm a weak weak man and that's way too rich to let slid. So I guess now we're responsible for the Winter War too. Couple of things about that.

"Existing fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus" would mean the Mannerheim line, right? Our strongest defense during the Winter War, which the Soviets weren't able to break for the whole 105 days? Gee, I wonder why the Soviets might have wanted us to tear it down before the war. The whole thing might look a bit suspicious if the Soviets had already signed a secret pact with the Germans, where they essentially staked out Finland as Soviet territory. But since that wasn't the case, I'm sure the Soviets were just concerned that a line of pillboxes might march right in to Leningrad.

No - you're not responsible for the Winter War. See, here's the the thing: you implied that Soviets were land-hungry monsters. I pointed out that Soviets were giving Finland twice as much land as they were taking. Now you come up with this strawman.

To rebut that strawman, I'll just point out that Soviets were preparing for war with Nazi Germany, and were worried, rightfully so, that Finland would cooperate with Nazi Germany in the Siege of Leningrad. Removal of said fortifications would've prevented any attempt to take Leningrad, or aid to Nazis in taking Leningrad, by the Finns. Even during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviets were still building defenses against Nazi Germany.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

While I for one love the Cossack people, I'm going to have to say I agree with the USSR's treatment of those Cossacks who fought for the Germans. It's one thing to turn on a government that has different political ideologies than what you support, it's another to team up with another equally brutal totalitarian regime that actively implemented anti-semitism.

And let us not forget that these German Cossacks were instrumental in putting down the Warsaw Uprising, atrocities against Jews and Communists and etc. so there was no question as to their guilt. The only problem was that the entity handing down punishment was the USSR. Just bad luck.

[San Thomas]

Is the the thing: you implied that Soviets were land-hungry monsters. I pointed out that Soviets were giving Finland twice as much land as they were taking. Now you come up with this strawman.

To rebut that strawman, I'll just point out that Soviets were preparing for war with Nazi Germany, and were worried, rightfully so, that Finland would cooperate with Nazi Germany in the Siege of Leningrad. Removal of said fortifications would've prevented any attempt to take Leningrad, or aid to Nazis in taking Leningrad, by the Finns. Even during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviets were still building defenses against Nazi Germany.

So to sum up, you believe that USSR was afraid that Finland would join up with the Germans, so they pre-emptively attacked to defend Leningrad? I guess pre-emptive attacks are bad only when it's not the Russians doing it.

I guess they were also afraid that baltic states might join up with Germany too. Oh, and eastern Poland, and everything else deemed part of Soviet dominion in Molotov-Ribbentrop and subsequently annexed. Yeah, I think there's a pretty good case there that Soviets were at least a little land-hungry. They could have promised Finland all Soviet lands north of Moscow, but I don't think we would have kept them very long if the condition was that we tear down the defenses meant to keep the Soviets away.

Tell me, honestly, you don't see any problem with this:
On August 23. MR pact is signed, Germany and USSR agree that Finland belongs to Soviet dominion
On October 5. USSR demands that Finland dismantle all defensive structures in Karelia and that Soviet troops be placed in Hanko, within striking distance of Finland's capital
On November 26. Mainila is shelled. Soviets accuse Finland, though in reality Soviets shelled their own town for a casus belli
On November 30. Soviets attack along the entire Finnish border.

Of course the secret protocol of MR and the truth about Mainila weren't revealed until after the Winter War, but answer me this, and answer it simply: Are you honestly saying that Finland was unreasonable when it chose not to trust in the Soviets?

EDIT: By the way, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania received similar ultimatums from USSR, and accepted. Whatever happened to them, pray tell?

[San Thomas]

And what strawman? You're the one who said that Soviet demands were reasonable, as if accepting them would have saved Finland from being invaded. I think it's pretty damn relevant that pretty much everything the Soviets did before, during and after the Winter War shows that their only goal regarding Finland was to annex it completely.

[Ceannairceach]

And the post that you were responding to, that one talked about the Continuation War, which the Finns started. Additionally, Finns took part in the Siege of Leningrad, and I don't recall Leningrad, ever, being a part of Finland.

Hold on there, wasn't it the Soviet Union that launched the initial attack? If memory serves, they attempted a (botched) aerial attack on Finnish air stations, failing to hit them but rather hitting civilian centers. If this is true, then that would place the direct blame for the war on the Soviet Union.

[Shofercia]

Is the the thing: you implied that Soviets were land-hungry monsters. I pointed out that Soviets were giving Finland twice as much land as they were taking. Now you come up with this strawman.

To rebut that strawman, I'll just point out that Soviets were preparing for war with Nazi Germany, and were worried, rightfully so, that Finland would cooperate with Nazi Germany in the Siege of Leningrad. Removal of said fortifications would've prevented any attempt to take Leningrad, or aid to Nazis in taking Leningrad, by the Finns. Even during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviets were still building defenses against Nazi Germany.

So to sum up, you believe that USSR was afraid that Finland would join up with the Germans, so they pre-emptively attacked to defend Leningrad? I guess pre-emptive attacks are bad only when it's not the Russians doing it.

I guess they were also afraid that baltic states might join up with Germany too. Oh, and eastern Poland, and everything else deemed part of Soviet dominion in Molotov-Ribbentrop and subsequently annexed. Yeah, I think there's a pretty good case there that Soviets were at least a little land-hungry. They could have promised Finland all Soviet lands north of Moscow, but I don't think we would have kept them very long if the condition was that we tear down the defenses meant to keep the Soviets away.

Tell me, honestly, you don't see any problem with this:
On August 23. MR pact is signed, Germany and USSR agree that Finland belongs to Soviet dominion
On October 5. USSR demands that Finland dismantle all defensive structures in Karelia and that Soviet troops be placed in Hanko, within striking distance of Finland's capital
On November 26. Mainila is shelled. Soviets accuse Finland, though in reality Soviets shelled their own town for a casus belli
On November 30. Soviets attack along the entire Finnish border.

Of course the secret protocol of MR and the truth about Mainila weren't revealed until after the Winter War, but answer me this, and answer it simply: Are you honestly saying that Finland was unreasonable when it chose not to trust in the Soviets?

EDIT: By the way, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania received similar ultimatums from USSR, and accepted. Whatever happened to them, pray tell?

Capturing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is much easier than capturing Finland, because Finland is the defender's country. Additionally, no one stopped the Finns from building defensive positions in zones that Soviets didn't demand. And yeah pre-emptive war is wrong, but if you'd read my posts, you'd notice that I'm critiquing Finns for starting the Continuation War, specifically in the Siege of Leningrad, not for their actions in the Winter War. So yeah, that would've been a stellar rebuttal, if I was actually critiquing Finns in the Winter War, not the Continuation War.

And what strawman? You're the one who said that Soviet demands were reasonable, as if accepting them would have saved Finland from being invaded. I think it's pretty damn relevant that pretty much everything the Soviets did before, during and after the Winter War shows that their only goal regarding Finland was to annex it completely.

Yes, I did. And no - that wasn't the goal. If Soviets wanted to annex Finland at any cost, as you mistakenly allege, why didn't they annex Finland during WWII? They allowed Finland to switch sides in 1945, which was pretty damn generous, since in 1945, the USSR could've easily just swallowed up Finland, and no one would bother to attack the USSR over it.

And the post that you were responding to, that one talked about the Continuation War, which the Finns started. Additionally, Finns took part in the Siege of Leningrad, and I don't recall Leningrad, ever, being a part of Finland.

Hold on there, wasn't it the Soviet Union that launched the initial attack? If memory serves, they attempted a (botched) aerial attack on Finnish air stations, failing to hit them but rather hitting civilian centers. If this is true, then that would place the direct blame for the war on the Soviet Union.

Soviets started the Winter War. Finns started the Continuation War. There was a period of peace between the two wars, and the Finns launched the Continuation War right after Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa, and assisted Nazis in the siege of Leningrad. These are the actions that I'm asking an apology for; heck, if the Finns would just apologize for participation in the Siege of Leningrad, I'd drop the issue, but one must admit their past mistakes.

[San Thomas]

Capturing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is much easier than capturing Finland, because Finland is the defender's country.

Missed the point by a mile. You said Soviets were not land-hungry, then why did they take the Baltic States, easy or not? You said Soviet demands were reasonable, then why didn't giving in to them seem to have any iota of effect on whether your country was going to be invaded?

Additionally, no one stopped the Finns from building defensive positions in zones that Soviets didn't demand.

The Mannerheim line had been under construction since 1920. You saying that Soviets would have post-boned WWII about 20 years to give Finns time to build new fortifications, and big wall around Hanko too? My, how very reasonable of them.

And yeah pre-emptive war is wrong, but if you'd read my posts, you'd notice that I'm critiquing Finns for starting the Continuation War, specifically in the Siege of Leningrad, not for their actions in the Winter War. So yeah, that would've been a stellar rebuttal, if I was actually critiquing Finns in the Winter War, not the Continuation War.

Again, you said Soviet demands prior to the Winter War were reasonable. That by extension would mean that Finns were being unreasonable by not accepting, which would put at least some blame on Finland. How very reasonable of USSR to ask us nicely to put down our weapons, after they had already agreed with Germany that they were going to invade us.

Yes, I did. And no - that wasn't the goal. If Soviets wanted to annex Finland at any cost, as you mistakenly allege, why didn't they annex Finland during WWII? They allowed Finland to switch sides in 1945, which was pretty damn generous, since in 1945, the USSR could've easily just swallowed up Finland, and no one would bother to attack the USSR over it.

At any cost? No, I never alleged that. The Finnish defensive victories in battles like Tali-Ihantala in 1944 showed the USSR that no, Finland could not be "easily swallowed" and the cost of taking Finland might just be too high. Remember your own words, by 1945 USSR was tired of war. In 1939 they underestimated Finland's capability to defend itself, they did not make the same mistake in 1945.