Actually all fossil reconstructions are wrong because flesh only evolved recently. Before that it was bone world
gee i wonder what's gonna come up when i google lotta svard
hm. that doesn't look good. wonder who this guy is
oh. no correlation with nazis though. i'm sure this was just a coincidence. wonder if finland did anything in world war 2
idk if it was me i would simply not ally myself with the nazis. kind of a skill issue
This myth always gets perpetuated when Lenin himself allowed Finland to freely dissociate themselves from the USSR upon its founding (a grave mistake!). The Winter War was fought more or less over the question of "will you at least commit to not letting Nazis pass through your country to invade the USSR yes or no," which the Finns chose to answer by siding with the Nazis and giving Nazis passage over their land, giving an advantage to the Nazis (this is bad, if you aren't following at home) that could have been avoided.
I did not expect this to leave my immediate friend group, but since someone linked this on Setz's response, I will link the sources from which I draw my claims (previously thought to be unneeded since my immediate social group is already familiar). In fact, I don't even have to use sources that are overly deferential to the USSR, as we'll see.
This was the soviet demand, from a Finnish source in 1940:
“In the negotiations with Finland, the Soviet Union is mainly concerned with the settlement of two questions: a) securing the safety of Leningrad; b) becoming satisfied that Finland will maintain firm, friendly relations with the Soviet Union. In order to fulfil this duty, it is necessary: (1) To make it possible to block the opening of the Gulf of Finland by means of artillery fire from both coasts of the Gulf of Finland in order to prevent warships and transport ships of the enemy penetrating, to the waters of the Gulf of Finland. (2) To make it possible to prevent the access of the enemy to those islands in the Gulf of Finland which are situated west and north-west of the entrance to Leningrad. (3) To have the Finnish frontier in the Karelian Isthmus, which is now at a distance of 32 km. from Leningrad, i.e., within the range of long-distance artillery, moved somewhat farther northwards and northwestwards”. (‘The Development of Finnish-Soviet Relations of 1939″;Helsinki 1940; p. 49-50).
This is, of course, with Nazis rapidly advancing into Soviet land.
The Finnish internal position was this:
“If the Soviet Union should make proposals regarding the creation of Soviet Union military bases on the Finnish mainland, or, e.g., on the Aaland Islands, such proposals should be rejected and any discussion thereof refused. The same applies to any proposals referring to frontier adjustments on the Karelian Isthmus. . . . . If the Soviet Union suggests the conclusion of a treaty of mutual assistance, . . it should be pointed out that such a treaty is not compatible with Finland’s policy of neutrality”. (‘The Development of Finnish-Soviet Relations . . . ‘; ibid.; p.47, 49).
To this end, Stalin offered Finland an exchange of land:
“It is not the fault of either of us that geographical circumstances are as they are. We must be able to bar entrance to the Gulf of Finland. . . . . Once a hostile fleet is in the Gulf, the Gulf can no longer be defended. You ask what power might attack us. England or Germany. We are on good terms with Germany now, but everything in this world may change. Yudenich* attacked through the Gulf of Finland, and later the British did the same. This can happen again. If you’re afraid to give us bases on the mainland, we can dig a canal round Hanko Neck. . We ask that the distance of Leningrad to the line should be 70 kilometres. That is minimum demand, and you must not think we are prepared to reduce it bit by bit. We can’t move Leningrad, so the line has to move. . . . We ask for 2,700 square kilometres and offer more than 5,500 in exchange”. (V. Tanner: ‘The Winter War: Finland against Russia: 1939-1940’; Stanford (USA); 1957; p. 27-28).
This was rejected by the Finnish authorities. The Winter War was never a defensive one on Finnish part. There was no grand conspiracy to subsume all of Finland. In fact, this is echoed even in history relatively hostile to the USSR in the 1950s:
“The Soviet leaders were determined, above all, to do two things. They wished to push the frontier on the Karelian Isthmus back a substantial distance from its closest approach to Leningrad. . . . They also wished to establish a naval base on the Finnish coast at the mouth of the Gulf, opposite the newly acquired bases in Estonia, so that any hostile shipping coming up the Gulf of Finland would have to run the gauntlet of a cross fire”. (C. L. Lundin: ‘Finland in the Second World ‘; Bloomington (USA); p. 51-52).
The truth of the matter is, Finland, whose anticommunist stance (and its strategic position in an invasion of USSR) was well known to all of the world* saw that Nazis were rapidly advancing into Russia and decided that they should throw their lots in with the Nazis. If even historians mostly hostile to the USSR could agree on this in 1957, then people in the 2020s could stand to do a lot better in studying history.
*Times Magazine noted as early as April of 1919 that Finalnd would be the best way to attack Leningrad, into Moscow from Leningrad.
This is called "driftwood theory" the Finnish version of apologia for nazi collaboration.
liberal finns get SOOOO fucking huffy when you call them out on this they go oh well we didn't murder all our jews we had to defend ourselves etc etc etc
meanwhile any time molotov-ribbentrop comes up people call it nazi collaboration instead of nonaggression that was signed AFTER stalin had already offered direct military support to the UK and was told to go fuck himself
Why would anyone look at a deranged bank robber shooting his generals as Nazi traitors and disbanding his tank formations and decide 'gee, a big war's coming on, so do we believe his generals are Nazi scum or do we think this guy is Ivan the Terrible with a telephone? Either way, what good is this fuck as an ally'? Please, answer that with a straight face. The Purges are why the USSR embarrassed itself in fucking Finland, which even Ivan the Terrible was able to walk over with trivial difficulty. They are why the UK and France didn't take an alliance offering seriously and never intended to.
All Hitler wanted was a one-front war and that's what he got, because the bank robber trusted the failed artist wannabe more than he did anyone else and got 26 million of his people killed with his damaged army for his idiocy.
look everyone the gremlin tried to talk
gee i wonder what's gonna come up when i google lotta svard
hm. that doesn't look good. wonder who this guy is
oh. no correlation with nazis though. i'm sure this was just a coincidence. wonder if finland did anything in world war 2
idk if it was me i would simply not ally myself with the nazis. kind of a skill issue
This myth always gets perpetuated when Lenin himself allowed Finland to freely dissociate themselves from the USSR upon its founding (a grave mistake!). The Winter War was fought more or less over the question of "will you at least commit to not letting Nazis pass through your country to invade the USSR yes or no," which the Finns chose to answer by siding with the Nazis and giving Nazis passage over their land, giving an advantage to the Nazis (this is bad, if you aren't following at home) that could have been avoided.
I did not expect this to leave my immediate friend group, but since someone linked this on Setz's response, I will link the sources from which I draw my claims (previously thought to be unneeded since my immediate social group is already familiar). In fact, I don't even have to use sources that are overly deferential to the USSR, as we'll see.
This was the soviet demand, from a Finnish source in 1940:
“In the negotiations with Finland, the Soviet Union is mainly concerned with the settlement of two questions: a) securing the safety of Leningrad; b) becoming satisfied that Finland will maintain firm, friendly relations with the Soviet Union. In order to fulfil this duty, it is necessary: (1) To make it possible to block the opening of the Gulf of Finland by means of artillery fire from both coasts of the Gulf of Finland in order to prevent warships and transport ships of the enemy penetrating, to the waters of the Gulf of Finland. (2) To make it possible to prevent the access of the enemy to those islands in the Gulf of Finland which are situated west and north-west of the entrance to Leningrad. (3) To have the Finnish frontier in the Karelian Isthmus, which is now at a distance of 32 km. from Leningrad, i.e., within the range of long-distance artillery, moved somewhat farther northwards and northwestwards”. (‘The Development of Finnish-Soviet Relations of 1939″;Helsinki 1940; p. 49-50).
This is, of course, with Nazis rapidly advancing into Soviet land.
The Finnish internal position was this:
“If the Soviet Union should make proposals regarding the creation of Soviet Union military bases on the Finnish mainland, or, e.g., on the Aaland Islands, such proposals should be rejected and any discussion thereof refused. The same applies to any proposals referring to frontier adjustments on the Karelian Isthmus. . . . . If the Soviet Union suggests the conclusion of a treaty of mutual assistance, . . it should be pointed out that such a treaty is not compatible with Finland’s policy of neutrality”. (‘The Development of Finnish-Soviet Relations . . . ‘; ibid.; p.47, 49).
To this end, Stalin offered Finland an exchange of land:
“It is not the fault of either of us that geographical circumstances are as they are. We must be able to bar entrance to the Gulf of Finland. . . . . Once a hostile fleet is in the Gulf, the Gulf can no longer be defended. You ask what power might attack us. England or Germany. We are on good terms with Germany now, but everything in this world may change. Yudenich* attacked through the Gulf of Finland, and later the British did the same. This can happen again. If you’re afraid to give us bases on the mainland, we can dig a canal round Hanko Neck. . We ask that the distance of Leningrad to the line should be 70 kilometres. That is minimum demand, and you must not think we are prepared to reduce it bit by bit. We can’t move Leningrad, so the line has to move. . . . We ask for 2,700 square kilometres and offer more than 5,500 in exchange”. (V. Tanner: ‘The Winter War: Finland against Russia: 1939-1940’; Stanford (USA); 1957; p. 27-28).
This was rejected by the Finnish authorities. The Winter War was never a defensive one on Finnish part. There was no grand conspiracy to subsume all of Finland. In fact, this is echoed even in history relatively hostile to the USSR in the 1950s:
“The Soviet leaders were determined, above all, to do two things. They wished to push the frontier on the Karelian Isthmus back a substantial distance from its closest approach to Leningrad. . . . They also wished to establish a naval base on the Finnish coast at the mouth of the Gulf, opposite the newly acquired bases in Estonia, so that any hostile shipping coming up the Gulf of Finland would have to run the gauntlet of a cross fire”. (C. L. Lundin: ‘Finland in the Second World ‘; Bloomington (USA); p. 51-52).
The truth of the matter is, Finland, whose anticommunist stance (and its strategic position in an invasion of USSR) was well known to all of the world* saw that Nazis were rapidly advancing into Russia and decided that they should throw their lots in with the Nazis. If even historians mostly hostile to the USSR could agree on this in 1957, then people in the 2020s could stand to do a lot better in studying history.
*Times Magazine noted as early as April of 1919 that Finalnd would be the best way to attack Leningrad, into Moscow from Leningrad.
This is called "driftwood theory" the Finnish version of apologia for nazi collaboration.
liberal finns get SOOOO fucking huffy when you call them out on this they go oh well we didn't murder all our jews we had to defend ourselves etc etc etc
meanwhile any time molotov-ribbentrop comes up people call it nazi collaboration instead of nonaggression that was signed AFTER stalin had already offered direct military support to the UK and was told to go fuck himself
The server finds out about Pat Robertson fucking biffing it.
Pride month has now claimed both Reagan and Robertson. Here's hoping Bryant is next!
Rot in piss, asshole.
The Supreme Court just gutted unions' ability to strike entirely so that's where we're at now.
2/3rds of the ‘liberal’ justices on the court sided with conservatives against their voter base
For anyone wondering specifics, this is a great example of how these ghouls enact policy without enacting policy. What happened here was some Teamsters walked out of work while their trucks were still full of concrete. The employer sued them for the lost concrete, calling it "property damage". Then, the NLRB stepped in to say that a bullshit lawsuit like that was against federal labor law, and SCOTUS decided it's not.
Lost product and lost profit are the point of strikes. But now an employer can sue you for striking if you messed up their product. So yeah, the Supreme Court just gutted unions' ability to strike entirely, so that's where we're at now
dragon ball z. all the cool kids know it from dragon ball z
u ever just sit and listen to the war happening in the trenches of ur small intestine
they are calling in fucking air strikes from the pancreas
i was yelled at today about this but
example phrase: "OP delete this post"
Imagine getting so badly swept on your own poll.
Fuuucking hell
Thanks blue no matter who crowd hope yall die
hey yall, you do realize that if dems had more of a majority in the government rn, they wouldn’t have to try to compromise on this shit, right? Like, it’s nice that you can pat yourself on the back for liking third party candidates that literally cannot win at the national level because of the way our government is currently structured, but it genuinely does nothing to help. Republicans have a stranglehold on too many states via gerrymandering for you assholes to sit here and act like voting blue is bad.
Look, if you think voting blue isn’t enough then great--go get involved. Call your reps. Go to protests. Donate money to legal funds and advocacy groups. But quit acting like people voting democrat caused this situation.
hey do you take feedback on your posts
Oh so the plural of surgeon general is surgeons general, huh? Well what about bunnies rabbit. Puppies dog. KITTIES CAT. Did you ever think of that, you sillies goose?
so funny when people are like "this is the first pansexual Thai person in overwatch!" like girl u know that's a video game right
scandal-based development schedule
tumblr is the only good social media left because i don't get instantly banned for saying margarine nazi green should be killed, revived, and killed again
a lot of internet discourse around telling people to kill themselves has unfortunately led us to a situation where people like elon musk and chaya raychik don't get bullied enough, so they keep existing instead of dying. real lack of foresight but at least we can say it here