Stalin monument to be built??

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
"The only thing that is relevent is whether or not Finnish troops helped cut the supply lines to Leningrad."

Yes but this is false.

We didn't cut any lines. The lines would have gone through our defensive zones.

If you hadn't invaded the USSR, the lines would not have been cut. Since you did invade the USSR, you cut the lines. The fact that they would have gone through your defensive lines is irrelevent, since , if you had not invaded, those defensive lines would not have existed.

Therefore, you helped cut off Leningrad from the USSR.

Therefore, you helped to starve 670,000 people.

You lose.

[Unspeakable Horror]

Che, you won´t convince them. It´s pointless.

Che has posted lots of proof to support his cause. You and laurentus have posted nothing. YOU PROVIDE NOTHING YOU CRIMINAL!

[Pekka]

Sava, no, I have quoted the same wikipedia with full context of it, the same ones as others in this thread.

if you think I'm lying about clear facts to enhance what ever agendas, then think that. If you find a clear factual error in all of this debate that was meant as an argument and not thrown in glorious fury, go ahead, I then show you my willy for free. I dare you to find errors.

[Pekka]

"If you hadn't invaded the USSR, the lines would not have been cut. Since you did invade the USSR, you cut the lines. The fact that they would have gone through your defensive lines is irrelevent, since , if you had not invaded, those defensive lines would not have existed."

WOW that's a revisionist on FIRE!

I won't demote myself to this level anymore. You lose by weird arguments and holes through your theory. You can't refute my facts man. And the facts reflect the truth. Yeah, facts that take other facts into consideration, nto just your 'OMG Nazi in Finland, they hate the jew!'-type of thinking you seem to be providing.

[Pekka]

You see, we were fighting SU. Who attacked us. We didn't cut any lines. The line we cut is the line we didn't creat FOR SU, the enemy at the time.

You can draw conclusion that we helped to starve Leningrad, failing to see our decision kept it alive also at the same time, disregarding most facts, and then making a route of conclusions so mixed up even Stephen Hawkings couldn't work it through. YOu know, where I support Al Qaeda, because it's part of international terrorism, if I buy a joint, because that money goes to criminals and at some level criminals and terrorists cooperate, thus I'm helping OSama to destroy the West. That kind of logic, far far routes, that's the way you are thinking. It's not a fact. It's just your interpretation. Based on way less facts than others have in this thread.

[tinyp3nis]

At all this.

To aid someone? How do you aid/help someone? Can you passively aid, help or assist, is that aid at all? Maybe...

What we didn't do is, once we got the land back we previously owned, we didn't declare peace and start handing out bread to them. So atleast, we didn't aid Leningrad, that we didn't do. By not giving Russians aid, is that aiding Germans to starve Leningrad? Finns just sat on their asses.

But wait, we didn't do what we could to make them starve. We also sat on our asses regarding the German needs, the ones to move closer and join the siege etc.

Is the logic here
To not aid Russian = To aid Germans?
Then also
To not aid Germans = To aid Russians.....

why wouldn't that apply also? Because...? Who else aided in the starving then? They don't apply separately.

Oh no! The world isn't black and white, and it just isn't about "simple facts"? So I must be wrong, because clearly the world is just black and white?

Neither of them is very meaningful, because,, both things happened because it was our best interest, finns weren't helpful heroes nor evil. Regarding Leningrad, our actions were neutral as possible, so we could get least amount of **** later on.

I'm still waiting to see how we aided with the starving other than sitting on our asses. There is only one way to say we did aid with the starving but didn't ALSO help preventing it, it is to use the logic above, apply hopycricy and contradiction. It's not trolling, Che just didn't know period.

I'm going to have to throw in a wild guess, and say Che is a closet nationalist. USA did help Russia.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not nationalist myself, biggest shame for my country is that we are much like the deep south in USA in some respect.
Nationalism
Lack of objectivity and twisting the truth without even knowing it

[Sprayber]

I don't see what the big deal is. che is simply using the facts on record to prove his points. Right or wrong the United States is responsible for vaporizing two cities in Japan just like the Finns participated (however willingly and regardless of being right or wrong) in surrounding the city and starving them. You guys really don't have to be so fragile about it. It's simply a matter of history. The right or wrong of your actions cannot change what happened just like American can't say that we didn't use atomic weapons. No matter how brutal the Japanese were or how wrong Stailin was, things still happened the the way they did. It's best to admit it and offer the circumstances and be satisfied with it. Otherwise you look as if you are ashamed of how it went down. Just my two cents..

[tinyp3nis]

Wrong analogy, Americans themselves dropped the bomb, the analogy would apply if Brits had dropped the bomb and USA watching in the sidelines.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Wrong analogy, Americans themselves dropped the bomb, the analogy would apply if Brits had dropped the bomb and USA watching in the sidelines.

Edit: well, maybe not the Brits but some American ally around the pacific, you get the point anyway.
Edit: Yeah, wrong button

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Wrong analogy, Americans themselves dropped the bomb, the analogy would apply if Brits had dropped the bomb and USA watching in the sidelines.

No, its simply about fessing up to what you done. You don't have to justify it if you don't want to but trying to go around in circles trying to say it didnt really happen that way. I don't necessarly mean you in particular.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Sprayber


No, its simply about fessing up to what you done. You don't have to justify it if you don't want to but trying to go around in circles trying to say it didnt really happen that way. I don't necessarly mean you in particular.

Wait, what? Are you saying it's correct analogy? I sure hope not.

I actually want the truth, not the truth in favor of us, or them. Would it be true to say US also nuked Tokyo? No because it didn't happen.

But I'm sure people in Japan generally did have less of food because of the war, and that applies to most wars, which means most wars mean starving, even if you don't cut supply. Passive one, which never gets mentioned because it's redundant, but if you siege it's no longer passive but active, then it get's mentioned, and rightly so.

[Pekka]

Confessing what you have done? Is doing nothing now doing something against someone?

What Che feels irrelevant is the situation all together and how it got to that. Stalin created the mess in the first place and we were forced to be where we were. I said we took a moderate buffer zone, matter of kms. Yes, some could still argue it's a lot of kilometers, well, maybe so, but strategically that was the best place for us to be and start digging in for the coming major offensive, undoubtetly coming at some point.

Strategically speaking, how could Finland win against invading SU? By invading back and destroinyg the country? Well maybe in lalaland but not in reality. It would be impossible for us. So the only way we can win is to somehow make SU stop. To stop in the old borders and dig in would still be in target of major offensives, and then you'd run back to Helsinki in no time and Oops Stalin got his goal after all and we lost it all.

No no, the best is to make the invader pay as much as possible for the war, so at some point it will just stop it. THat's the only way we could have won. So, that's what they tried to do, make invader pay for every single square meter invaded. And that's hwo we came to negotiate for peace. It wasn't like Stalin didn't watn Finland in the beginning, the price started being too high. Of course we couldn't take it also, so there was a middle grounds to meet in. Naturally we would have wanted to keep our old borders but that wasn't an option then.

Now, so SU bombs, continuation war begins. The start pushing in, but our side was able to block and push the other way instead. WELL EXCUSE ME! Now they take the old border back and create buffer zone for defensive purposes. Hey, maybe they want to settle for less now and we can keep old borders, who knows. Makes sense. Also the river as you see is where you want to be. It's not like the best idea would be to let SU mass its troops again in the Karelian isthmus and start pounding, no thanks. Strategically speaking, there are better defensive zones, and that river came essential as everyone could see.

They dug in. It was mostly inactive. SU didn't bother to attack a lot either. Now, this would equal to being responsbiel for something because you exists.

It's like you'd be driving a car drunk, wrecklessly and then hitting a tree next to the road and blaming the tree for being partially responsible for the crash. MAKES NO SENSE! Factually speaking, the tree was there. It did the damage to the car. But how much of a role it did in the crash? Well, umh, not?

The fact is, the last MAJOR offensive did came, and it was blocked, but the battle was the biggest fought in the northern europe's history I believe it was. There were many days and weeks even then, that our country was in danger, not only losing the old borders again, but the whole country. Fortunately enough, Stalin was unable, again. Stalin's plans were clear. His actions proved it.

Our INACTION shows that we weren't interested in starving Leningrad. And just because our defensive zones COULD have been used for support lines doesn't mean we cut the support lines. If someone cut them, Stalin cut them himself. He is the one responsible for it.

Yes, sometimes inaction can be negative action towards someone if it's not helping and someone needs help. EXCUSE ME again! I'm sorry we didn't help our enemy. You know they didn't even think about sieging any grads at all. Mostly about how the defensive zone will hold up. The zone was essential and justified and the only thing to do and it was forced on us. FACT: Finnish troops were near Leningrad. FACT: They didn't siege Leningrad. FACT: They didn't help Leningrad. Anything else is details.

Like I said, you keep bringing up cutting support lines. Well, they were in our zones. If you can't understand that, and the redicilous nature of your suggestion that we cut it, then you will never get it anyway. And not much else either. Where were your other support lines. In helsinki? I'm sorry, we cut that one too, when our mothers gave us birth.

What about Sweden? They didn't help you either! BASTARDS!

There are lot of people who didn't help you.

The fact is, we didn't cut the lines. They got in our way when SU attacked and we pushed back. Too bad. IT's like the tree and the drunken driver.

We were close Leningrad this is true. However, this doesn't mean we were partially starving Leningrad.

[Kidlicious]

I say just give Finland the benefit of the doubt. We will never know what their intentions were.

[Pekka]

Uhh, yes you do if you bother to read history. Our intensions were to stay alive and stay independent. It's not like you can have lots of goals when big bear comes and takes it on a small nation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Uhh, yes you do if you bother to read history. Our intensions were to stay alive and stay independent. It's not like you can have lots of goals when big bear comes and takes it on a small nation.

That really says nothing about whether Finland is responsible. If anything you are trying to justify Finlands actions. I thought you were arguing their inocence.