|
AFAIK Turkey is ok with Finland joining but it raises issues for Finland joining but Sweden not because our militaries and plans are somewhat integrated already and it would complicate things. Add to that the shock of Sweden pulling the trigger on EU membership in early 90's that left its mark into Finnish foreign policy that forced Finland into reactive state, the boomer politicians who remember it are hemming and hawing with this "trauma" that should we now do the same or not and what would it mean. It's complicated.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2023 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
I don't think Polish-German non-aggression pact had a clause that divided eastern-Europe between them that directly led to Poles annexing countries, deporting politically suspect people to Siberia from them, invading a country in a war of aggression leading to hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed and co-invading with nazis one other country where they massacred tens of thousands of prisoners and then proceeded to cover it up.....
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 13:47
|
|
|
I like the implication of how some tough love was ok because the alternative is much worse (the alternative being that somehow not brutalizing eastern Europe before nazi invasion would have meant that nazis would have won). Also how Britain and France were appeasers to fascists because of them buying time in -38 and then declaring war on nazis in -39, but allying with nazis in -39 was just smart real politiks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was, as mentioned, basically just a bigger version of what the Poles did to Czechoslovakia during a period where the Soviets were still trying to get everyone to gang up on Hitler. Poland ended up getting invaded because it and its allies were more anti-Communist/Russian than anti-Hitler. The entire lead-up to the war is basically the Soviets going "Let's stop this man" and France, Britain and Poland going "But he hates you even more than we hate you". Plus the Brits and Americans making money off Hitler, and some of them explicitly trying to create a detente with Hitler so that he'd be free to unleash a hellwar upon the Soviets. It is true that annexing three countries and invading two resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths can technically be seen as a "bigger version" of Poles annexing part of Czechoslovakia alongside nazis, but the main point was that both are lovely things to do and you shouldn't try to justify brutalization of eastern Europe as necessary evil in defeating the nazis. Like as if Stalin was struggling in somekind of trolley problem where on one rail were the victims of Katyn, Winter War and soviet deportations in Baltics and the other rail had victims of nazis.... Also I understand the Soviet motivations behind their allying with the nazis. It's just that people decrying French and Brits as appeasers while saying that Soviets had no choice but to ally with nazis rings kinda hollow.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:I'm not implying anything of the sort—like I said, the western powers should've probably heeded the Soviet warnings long in advance and results would've been much different—but at the time the alternative to partial Soviet occupation was a total nazi occupation and the eventual extermination of most of the Polish populace. You aren't implying anything of the sort and then continue on saying that "the alternative to partial Soviet occupation was a total nazi occupation and the eventual extermination of most of the Polish populace.". Soviets didn't have any choice but to murder 20 000 Polish prisoners at Katyn because the alternative was that nazis would win and get to implement general plan ost in its totality? I really have a hard time understanding how brutalization of eastern Europeans was necessary to stop the even more total brutalization of eastern Europe.... Were Soviets doing a favour to Balts, Finns and Poles during the time Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was in effect?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You seem to be implying some sort of hypocrisy here, but we're dealing with these two situations: Like I said, I understand Soviet motivations in getting close to nazis. It was real politiks. Just like French and British appeasement in -38, while giving the appearance of humanistic rejection of horrors of world war, was more real politiks too, because allies weren't ready for war then. It is no surprise that Chamberlain upped the defense spending immediately after Munich agreement. My implication of hypocrisy was about people who decry French and Brits as fascist appeasers while saluting the craftiness and realism of Soviet foreign policy when they allied with fascists.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:Yes, the alternative to partial Soviet occupation was a total nazi occupation, I can't see why this is a controversial take. I'm not implying that Soviet occupation was benevolent or fair, I'm saying it was preferable to having ~85% of the population exterminated in ditches, furnaces and gas chambers. I'll happily add that Katyn, bad as it was, utterly pales in comparison to both the conduct and prospective plans of the nazis. Did the countries in question fare better under nazi vassal status? How about their Jewish and Roma populations? Also, who liberated the extermination camps? I guess it is good that you are happy in reflecting how much murder of 20 000 pales in comparison to murder of millions, good for you in not dwelling on human tragedy but finding some enjoyment in it. But my point has been that there was an alternative direction Soviets could have taken. They could have not murdered those 20 000 people in Katyn, they could not have annexed Baltic states, they could not have invaded Finland. Or were those absolutely necessary things to do to stop nazis from implementing General Plan Ost? A sacrifice to prevent even bigger tragedy?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Brits attempted to make it so Hitler would wage a massively devastating war in Eastern Europe against just the USSR. They were already ready for a war if they had chosen to fight alongside the USSR before Hitler bolstered his army with Czech tanks, so the argument for appeasement only works after you've accepted that taking down Hitler early with the Soviets was out of the question. It could be that 'let them fight' scenario would have suited many in the British establishment, but it is also widely accepted historical interpretation that Brits at the time (-38) thought that their military was woefully unprepared to take on Germany and that they thought that Soviet military wouldn't amount to much worth in potential war. Take for example the remarks of couple high ranking Brits from the time Munich agreement was being hashed out in 1938: Chief of the General Staff, Edmund Ironside posted:We cannot expose ourselves to a German attack. We simply commit suicide if we do General Hastings Ismay posted:if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6–12 months' time than to accept the present challenge So Brits thought that they couldn't challenge Germany in 1938 and they doubted Soviet capacity to do so. I think it is reflective of British estimation of Soviet military worth that they were seriously contemplating on taking military action against Soviet Union during the Phony War in 1939-1940, mostly taking interest in taking out the Soviet oil fields that were supplying the nazi war machine. If western allies were dead seat upon appeasing Germany, why did they declare war on them in 1939?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Dutch disease refers to a situation where one export oriented industrial sector, often in resource extraction, is experiencing a boom and the increased revenue leads to boom in domestic economy like in service sector. But this increases real exchange rate meaning that all the export oriented industries that aren't experiencing the boom will start losing their competitive edge. The name doesn't refer to Tulip mania of 17th century, it refers to analysis of Dutch economy in 20th century when they experienced boom in natural gas extraction industry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 13:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
teen witch posted:Don’t ask me how but today I learned that Finnish immigrants to the US in the 1900s faced discrimination and the whole “you’re not really white” bullshit as well. I thought the sentiment in Sweden was loving ridiculous. IIRC correctly that had more to do with Finnish immigrants leaning heavily socialist and were known to agitate and being troublemakers (because workers unionizing means trouble for captains of industry!) so trying to apply things like chinese exclusion act to "asiatic" Finns was convenient way to deal with the problem. So not racism as a central point rather than using it as a way to gently caress with the working class.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 08:39
|
|