Soviet Union's Possible Success

[David Floyd]

che-

when only one country in the world has the atomic bomb, and has demonstrated a willingness to use it, everyone is justified in trying to steal it.

Theft and acts of war are never justified.

Perhaps if the US hadn't threatened to nuke the USSR over the USSRs occupation of Northern Persia, they might not have felt the need to get their hands on it as quickly as possible.

Perhaps the Soviets shouldn't have occupied northern Persia - which, let's face it, was simply a holdover from imperialist days. The Russians always had their eyes on that region.

Yes, Serb is correct, the US started the Cold War, not the Soviets. They were completely devastated, their economy was in ruins, 27 million people were dead. The last thing they wanted was an arms race and the threat of a new war. Stalin may have been a mediochre intellect, but he wasn't going to make the same mistake twice, trusting the peaceful intentions of Western Europe.

I'm curious - if Stalin didn't want an arms race, why did the Western Allies demobilize far, far more than he did?

The US started the Cold War by overturning the elections in Italy, refusing to allow West German states their own constituions that had "socialistic overtones," by arming the Greek fascist-monarchy and having them slaughter the Gerek Communists who had liberated the country, by overturing communist revolutions in Vietnam and South Korea, by interferring in the civil war in China, and by creating NATO.

All very interesting, because it seems as these actions were predated by Soviet occupations of Eastern Europe. Oh that's right, they were "liberating" Eastern Europe - which still doesn't explain why they forced communism on these countries after the war.

Serb,

1946 Churchill's fulton speach it is almost a declaration of war against Soviets, if you didn't read it I can give you a link.

Hmmm....as I recall Churchill wasn't even in power at the time.

Formation of NATO- of course.

NATO was defensive in nature - read the Charter.

Poland & Finland your know little about those events as you already proved to me in some earlier posts.

Fine. If you can give me a justification for the SU's wars against Finland and Poland, do so.

The develiment of Soviets nucler bomb was started in 1943 in Kurchatov's lab.

No ****. And did I mention I'm building one in my basement? Doesn't mean I can do it, of course.

There was no Ukranian genocide, there was Stalin atrocities.

I never said genocide - I did say that Stalin and by extension the Soviet State murdered millions - starved 'em to death.

WTF are you talking about. If you are talking about POW, what do you think we should do with man who killd our wemens and children, who burned entire cities with its population alive, who come to our country to destroy it? You think Stalin should take him a ticket to home and let them go after all those crimes such "soldiers" done. Every crime must be punished.

Not that I'd expect you to admit it, but not only did the Red Army do much of the same, but the Heer and Waffen SS really didn't do anything except follow orders to fight the Red Army. I think who you want are the Einstatzgruppen, and even if I agree they deserve punishment (I don't), every German POW was not a member of those groups - not even close to every POW.
Further, what you suggest would be akin to the US working German POWs to death because of Hitler's Final Solution. There are moral rules to war - but then again only civilized nations follow them, in which category the Soviet Union does not belong.
Oh, and should I bring up the Soviet murder of Polish officers?

You have no idea about our war. Absolutely.
Lend-Lease, yes I don't want to be rude but..... Yes during first year of war it was helpfull, very helpfull, because Nazi took the most industrialized part of our territory and just evacuated plants didn't produced weapons in needed quantity. When evacueted plants started mass production, Lend-Lease become unimportant for us. Overall part of Lend-Lease in resourses spend by us in this war is 5%. Not big, but we apreciate it, thank you, just please don't say that we win war using American weapons, it's not true.

I'm not talking about weapons - although in November 1941 the SU had more modern Western tanks than modern Soviet ones. No, I mean things like raw materials, boots, railway equipment, natural resources, things of that nature. By 1945 the Soviet rail network was near collapse - imagine where it would have been without Western aid? And your soldiers would've had their toes freeze off due to lack of boots - at least many more than already did.
Weapons don't win wars nearly so much as logistics do, my friend.

And btw, isn't was that you always do- to make profit? You make a lot of money selling weapons to combantants.

Oh look at that. He thinks the SU actually paid for most of the stuff we gave them.

As for second front, Stalin asked about them all the time since war began, all his reqests were denied, and second front was opened in 1944 only when everything was almost done. Done by us btw.

Post a reasonable source showing the US/UK could have opened a second front earlier - you can't. Further, Operation Torch both directly and indirectly contributed your victory at Stalingrad, to say nothing of the invasion of Italy and the threat on the Balkans - if those dozens of divisions were in Russia there is no way the SU could have pushed as far as they did in the same time frame for the same amount of casualties.

You know nothing about Nazism then, it's very sad.

Yes, Nazism was alive and well post-WW2

You know nothing about 1939.

What an utterly devastating argument. I think I'll go cry in my room now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
che-

Theft and acts of war are never justified.

Well, that's all nice and good, when you're not the one staring at the wrong end of an atomic bomb being held by soeone who's not afraid to use it. If my neighbor is the only one in the world who has a machine gun, and he's used it and now he's pointing it at me, you can be damned sure I'm not waiting around nicely until I can uild my own. I'll stealing whatever I can to ensure my own survival. If that doesn't fit with your morals, oh well, doesn't matter, mine are superior.

Perhaps the Soviets shouldn't have occupied northern Persia - which, let's face it, was simply a holdover from imperialist days. The Russians always had their eyes on that region.

Perhaps the Shah shouldn't have allied with Hitler. The North was occupied by Russia during the war, and the South by Britain to stop Persia from joining Hitler's alliance.

I'm curious - if Stalin didn't want an arms race, why did the Western Allies demobilize far, far more than he did?

Because Russia had been invaded twice in twenty years. Only a great fool could not notice the trend. And Stalin was only a fool, not a great one.

All very interesting, because it seems as these actions were predated by Soviet occupations of Eastern Europe. Oh that's right, they were "liberating" Eastern Europe - which still doesn't explain why they forced communism on these countries after the war.

So, the Soviet's should have just stopped at the border of their country and not invaded Nazi Germany because Eastern Europe was in the way? And I suppose that the US and Britain shouldn't have invaded France and Italy. Please. Anyways, they didn't force communist governemnts on Eastern Europe until 1947, which is the same time that the US began doing it's monkey business. Furthermore, the allies wanted Russia to occupy Eastern Europe, to supress the real communists, who might have tried to make worker's democracies instead.

[David Floyd]

Well, that's all nice and good, when you're not the one staring at the wrong end of an atomic bomb being held by soeone who's not afraid to use it. If my neighbor is the only one in the world who has a machine gun, and he's used it and now he's pointing it at me, you can be damned sure I'm not waiting around nicely until I can uild my own. I'll stealing whatever I can to ensure my own survival. If that doesn't fit with your morals, oh well, doesn't matter, mine are superior.

Point A)If you think the US would have nuked the SU, unprovoked, than you are mistaken.
Point B)No they're not

Perhaps the Shah shouldn't have allied with Hitler. The North was occupied by Russia during the war, and the South by Britain to stop Persia from joining Hitler's alliance.

I'm well aware of those immoral actions - in any case the SU should have withdrawn after the war.

Because Russia had been invaded twice in twenty years. Only a great fool could not notice the trend. And Stalin was only a fool, not a great one.

Yes, a broke England, rebuilding France, a crushed Germany, and a US Army of under a million men posed ALL KINDS of problems to the defense of Russia
No, the much more logical answer is that the Soviets needed those millions of troops to control Eastern Europe - and of course invade Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.

So, the Soviet's should have just stopped at the border of their country and not invaded Nazi Germany because Eastern Europe was in the way? And I suppose that the US and Britain shouldn't have invaded France and Italy. Please.

No, they should have withdrawn to at least the same degree the US did. They might have also asked Poland, etc., if their armies were welcome.

Anyways, they didn't force communist governemnts on Eastern Europe until 1947, which is the same time that the US began doing it's monkey business.

I'm sorry, remind me how one justifies the other?
In any case, I think it's clear which side was more free between Western and Eastern Europe - unless of course all the people trying to immigrate to the West was American propaganda

Furthermore, the allies wanted Russia to occupy Eastern Europe, to supress the real communists, who might have tried to make worker's democracies instead.

When did I mention that I gave a flying **** what the US wanted, and how does the US's opinion make an action right or wrong?
In any case, our opinion had nothing to do with it - Stalin did what Stalin damn well wanted.

[chequita guevara]

If the US had threatened to nuke the USSR over Eastern Europe, the USSR would have left.

And the point isn't whether or not I believe the US would nuke the USSR, it's whether the Soviets believed it, and had a credible reason to believe it, which they did.

None of which changes the point that the West started the Cold War.

[steelehc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Well, that's all nice and good, when you're not the one staring at the wrong end of an atomic bomb being held by soeone who's not afraid to use it. If my neighbor is the only one in the world who has a machine gun, and he's used it and now he's pointing it at me, you can be damned sure I'm not waiting around nicely until I can uild my own. I'll stealing whatever I can to ensure my own survival. If that doesn't fit with your morals, oh well, doesn't matter, mine are superior.

So its okay for you to steal things, but not for us? Please. And ther US never threatened to use the atomic bomb.

Perhaps the Shah shouldn't have allied with Hitler. The North was occupied by Russia during the war, and the South by Britain to stop Persia from joining Hitler's alliance.

The Shah didn't ally with Hitler. The Shah had no control over Perisa during the war. Persia was one of the mandates, and controlled by Britain, almost like a colony. In fact, the man who claimed to be the Shah was seen as a disgrace by almost every nation, including Nazi Germany.

Because Russia had been invaded twice in twenty years. Only a great fool could not notice the trend. And Stalin was only a fool, not a great one.

Russia had been invaded twice in the last twenty-seven years. I could go on about how Russia brought the first war on itself by issuing mobilization orders, but I won't. There was a big difference between Nazi Germany, and the Western allies occupying it after the war. Furthermore, there was a huge difference between defending your frontier from a distance, as the USSR did immeadiatly after the war, against an almost barely concievable attack by the west, and defending yourself from a completely inconvievable attack by nations other then the US or Britain.

So, the Soviet's should have just stopped at the border of their country and not invaded Nazi Germany because Eastern Europe was in the way? And I suppose that the US and Britain shouldn't have invaded France and Italy. Please. Anyways, they didn't force communist governemnts on Eastern Europe until 1947, which is the same time that the US began doing it's monkey business. Furthermore, the allies wanted Russia to occupy Eastern Europe, to supress the real communists, who might have tried to make worker's democracies instead.

No, the Red army should not have stopped at the border, but they should have withdrawn after Germany surrendered. They should not have turned eastern europe into a collection of puppet states. The same goes for the US and Britain, even though they did not set up any puppet states. Please name an example of US "monkey business." Also, the Allies did not want Russia to permanently occupy europe the way they did. What they wanted had been achieved, and the need for Russia to have a network of "colonies" was gone.

Steele

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by steelehc
So its okay for you to steal things, but not for us? Please. And ther US never threatened to use the atomic bomb.

I'm not them, but if I were threatening you with a weapon, I expect you'd do something "immoral." Heck, under libertarian idoelogy, it wasn't even immoral, since their were threatened with violence, they had a right to defend themselves, in this case, by stealing the plans for the bomb. And yes they did. In fact, the US is the only country ever to threaten to use the bomb against another country (five times, IIRC), let alone use them.

The Shah didn't ally with Hitler. The Shah had no control over Perisa during the war. Persia was one of the mandates, and controlled by Britain, almost like a colony.

And Faisal of Iraq didn't try and ally with Hitler either, just because it was a British mandate. That's why the Brits needed to move more troops into Iraq. Just because your country was more or less run by the Brits doesn't mean you can't make independent moves of your own. Hell, the Natioanalist Party of South Africa would have alllied with Hitler had the Brits not stepped in.

Russia had been invaded twice in the last twenty-seven years. I could go on about how Russia brought the first war on itself by issuing mobilization orders, but I won't.

The USSR and Russia were two different entities. The USSR was invaded from 1918-1921 by fourteen different countries. They were invaded by Nazi Germany in 1941, okay, 22 years. They certainly didn't bring either upon themselves.

There was a big difference between Nazi Germany, and the Western allies occupying it after the war.

There is a difference to us. There was not much of a difference to the Soviets. They were convinced that the West was going to attack them again. With nut jobs like Patton running around saying we should do it, I can't say I blame them much.

No, the Red army should not have stopped at the border, but they should have withdrawn after Germany surrendered. They should not have turned eastern europe into a collection of puppet states. The same goes for the US and Britain, even though they did not set up any puppet states.

Greece, South Korea, etc.

Please name an example of US "monkey business."

The US intervention in the Italian election of 1947, which was projected to be a landslide Communist Party victory. The US launched a massive propaganda campaign and even paradropped US gangsters into Italy to foil the elections. The US propped up a proto-facsist monarchy in Greece, who immediately proceeded to slaughter the very people who had thrown the Germans out of Greece, the Communist Partisans. We all know how the US turned Vietnam back over to France, against the democratic wishes of the Vietnamese people. Shall I go on?

Also, the Allies did not want Russia to permanently occupy europe the way they did. What they wanted had been achieved, and the need for Russia to have a network of "colonies" was gone.

Well, the Allies didn't really care all that much about Eastern Europe. They wanted the USSR to supress any real commuist tendencies which the locals might have (which most of Europe had in the years following the war), plus they wanted the USSR to have to pay for the rebuilding of Eastern Europe, which would b a drain on the Soviet economy. The only country that might remotely be considered colonial was East Germany, and only because the USSR shipped off East Germany's industry as war reparations. Eastern Europe, unlike real colonies, was always a drain on the Soviet Union.

[Inverse Icarus]

@ Misterfun:

Thats the Marxist take on it, that all people share a common, classless society, that the working class overthrows the upper class and all that good stuff.

the communist system (ala the USSR) is a tolitarian govt on top of the equal working class, and therefore, not a true Marxist society.

we have yet to see a true marxist society, because the proletariate has always needed help revolting

[Serb]

Point A)If you think the US would have nuked the SU, unprovoked, than you are mistaken.
Point B)No they're not

Of course you have very strong reasons to nuke us. Let me guess, the reasons were- to eliminate evil commies, to remove the super power which is your competitor.

Hmmm....as I recall Churchill wasn't even in power at the time.

You know nothing about Fulton’s speech?

http://www.cnn.ru/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/02/documents/churchill/

NATO was defensive in nature - read the Charter.

Of course!!! How can I forget about this.
Wait a minute the Warsaw pact was defensive too.

Fine. If you can give me a justification for the SU's wars against Finland and Poland, do so.

It’s too long story and I don’t have much time now. I’ve already had many debates about this and don’t want to say again the same things. Try to read a book about pre WW2 policy of leading powers. It may explain a lot.

No ****. And did I mention I'm building one in my basement? Doesn't mean I can do it, of course.

You better watch out saying soo. OBL probably will steal it from you.

Not that I'd expect you to admit it, but not only did the Red Army do much of the same, but the Heer and Waffen SS really didn't do anything except follow orders to fight the Red Army. I think who you want are the Einstatzgruppen, and even if I agree they deserve punishment (I don't), every German POW was not a member of those groups - not even close to every POW.

Not that I'd expect you understand it.
It is impossible for an American to understand what this war was for us. You know nothing about this, you unable to understand what type of suffering and misery nazi bring upon our land, you unable to understand which price our people paid for victory in this war.
You see on this war from your side of the ocean. What this war was for you? Some people in Europe are killing each other. So what? Big deal, as long it doesn’t heart America and we can sell weapons to then we don’t care about this. We may continue our usual way of life, we may drink, we may dance, and we may watch baseball. Right?

You do not know and do not understand what this war was for us. Millions of people were slain. MILLIONS. Could you fècking imagine 3 absolutely dead New Yorks. Every Russian family has killed fathers, brother, relatives. You do not understand what our people did to win this war. While you drinking in bars, my grandfather a 16 years boy worked at railroad station to make trains run to front, like my grandmother 14 years old girl who worked a 12-14 workday at factory to make ammo, there was no man because all of them were in front line, like my grandfather, like two of his brothers which were killed, like their father which was killed, like father of my second grandfather which was killed, like his brother which was killed also.
This is casualties of only my family and not even a full list, it doesn’t include far relatives. In fact I am alive only because one of my grandfathers was lucky to return from war alive and meet his wife and second grandfather was too young to fight. Now think about 30 millions of dead people who were killed, they may have a families and children too.

You may not even imagine how any Russian feel when he heard- Hey Ruskie it was we- Yankees who win the war not your pathetic army.

You show no respect for what we’ve done. You think nazi was just soldiers who just follow orders.
Fine. You may even rehabilitate SS veterans like your precious Ukrainians or Lithuanians, Latvians or Estonians want too.
Fine warship to your precious Hitler scum, someday you’ll regret about this.

I'm not talking about weapons - although in November 1941 the SU had more modern Western tanks than modern Soviet ones. No, I mean things like raw materials, boots, railway equipment, natural resources, things of that nature. By 1945 the Soviet rail network was near collapse - imagine where it would have been without Western aid? And your soldiers would've had their toes freeze off due to lack of boots - at least many more than already did.

I’ve said overall. It means- OVERALL including row materials, boots and things of that nature. 5% overall. Some sources say 7%, some 4%.
30% as steelehc said is the bèll****t. The biggest bèll****.

Oh look at that. He thinks the SU actually paid for most of the stuff we gave them.

Of course SU paid for this.

Post a reasonable source showing the US/UK could have opened a second front earlier - you can't. Further, Operation Torch both directly and indirectly contributed your victory at Stalingrad, to say nothing of the invasion of Italy and the threat on the Balkans - if those dozens of divisions were in Russia there is no way the SU could have pushed as far as they did in the same time frame for the same amount of casualties.

Oh really?
What do you know about Stalingrad?
Invasion in Italy was after Stalingrad and all my sources, including memoirs of German generals saying that Wermacht divisions were constantly send to East front and that this greatly weaken West front.

Treat on Balkans? Why you stopped then?

Yes, Nazism was alive and well post-WW2

To bad that you don’t know what it is, and your nation forget about what type of evil it is. If you went through only 1% of misery which Nazism brings upon Russia and other occupied by nazi countries, your reaction sure was different.

What an utterly devastating argument. I think I'll go cry in my room now.

Yeah, do it!
What type of kick boxer you are then, if you are crying so often?

[Timexwatch]

Since I'm too lazy to comment on the first page, I'll just point out a few things:

Che:

We all know how the US turned Vietnam back over to France, against the democratic wishes of the Vietnamese people. Shall I go on?

The French never really stopped ruling Vietnam. The Japanese basically let the French continue running the place. Uncle Ho was not a fan of that decision

Well, the Allies didn't really care all that much about Eastern Europe. They wanted the USSR to supress any real commuist tendencies which the locals might have (which most of Europe had in the years following the war), plus they wanted the USSR to have to pay for the rebuilding of Eastern Europe, which would b a drain on the Soviet economy. The only country that might remotely be considered colonial was East Germany, and only because the USSR shipped off East Germany's industry as war reparations. Eastern Europe, unlike real colonies, was always a drain on the Soviet Union.

The USSR, contrary to poular opinion, could have received funds from the Marshall plan. When it was drawn up, there was one condition that the U.S. had, which was that Europe and the S.U. had to decide amongst themselves how to split up the money. The USSR did attend the conference for approxamately one day before they walked out. Did the U.S. ever really expect the Russians to agree to the terms? Probaby not. But one can't say that the U.S. did nothing to help the USSR rebuild.

If the US had threatened to nuke the USSR over Eastern Europe, the USSR would have left.

And the point isn't whether or not I believe the US would nuke the USSR, it's whether the Soviets believed it, and had a credible reason to believe it, which they did.

None of which changes the point that the West started the Cold War.

This is somewhat debateable, but evidence has shown that the USSR did fear the bomb. There is even evidence that Stalin might have known about the bomb and withheld any indication that he knew in order to test the U.S.'s trustworthiness. What we do know is that once the U.S. dropped the bombs on Japan, Russia declared war appx. two days later. Their invasion of Manchuria was speed up by three weeks, indicating that they certainly feared an immediate surrender by Japan and wanted to gain some quick territory. Even the flight of the Enola Gay to Britan sent rumbling through the Soviet leadership.

Perhaps if the US hadn't threatened to nuke the USSR over the USSRs occupation of Northern Persia, they might not have felt the need to get their hands on it as quickly as possible.

The Russians were no more entitled to northern Persia the the Kurils (I belive that was the island chain they invaded). This by no means excuses the Brits, though...

[quote]Actually, it is more likely that an accident will occur in the US. My friend who is a nuke tech on a boomer explained to me that unlike other countries, almost every nuke plan in the US is a prototype. They make new plans for plants whenever someone decides to make a new plant, whereas most other countries recycle their working plans.
[quote]

On subs, no. LA class subs use S6G with other variants floating around carries and the sort. Naval Reactors

Some of the information is slightly out of date (There is no MARF as far as I know. The MARF training reactor was shut down last year or the year before. Now training is mostly done in NY or NC on the S6G and variants.

As for commercial reactors, there is always some degree of variation between design, but the essential elements of a light water reactor remain the same.

steelhc:

So its okay for you to steal things, but not for us? Please. And ther US never threatened to use the atomic bomb.

What do you think Secretary of State Byrnes meant in the U.N. when he told the Soviet ambassador "Get out of Iran or we'll give it to you with both barrells!" (IIRC)

Floyd:

Point A)If you think the US would have nuked the SU, unprovoked, than you are mistaken.

Unprovoked, no. If there was a war going on, most certainly.

OzzyKP:

Hmmm, I don't doubt this happened, but could you provide some sources for this? I never did regard the west's actions during the cold war as very honorable, this could make things worse. Still better in degree, of course, than what the Soviet Union did, but equal in principle.

I know for certain that there was U.S. intervention in Italy and France to make sure that communists did not enter the govenment in Eastern Europe. But its no worse Stalin holding a gun to E. Europe's head saying "Elect the right people, or else..."



Arguing over who started the Cold War is pointless. Both sides commited serious errors. Stalin was not the only nutcase in government. With men like Byrnes and MacArthur, it's a small wonder that the Cold War didn't escalate. Both sides commited many acts of agression against the other. Hell, some could argue that the Cold War started during the War and simply "heated up" after...

[Stefu]

It’s too long story and I don’t have much time now. I’ve already had many debates about this and don’t want to say again the same things.

Oh, I'd also be interested in hearing some kind of justification for Winter War. So -very- interested.

[Heresson]

Every country ment to be constructed in the way that even a cleaner can become a leader of it is doomed to fall. Not that it isn't a nice project,
Anyway, SU was poor state with too big ambitions it had no means to turn into reality.

Ah, no 27mlns of Russian (rather Soviet) victims; 20mlns was the official version I believe, and Soviets counted into it all that they could; results of great famine in Ukraine were hidden before in stats, the war allowed them to get read of the difference and stats,
with profit to themselves.
\Plans for Slavs were enslavement, but undoubtly Hitler would change his plans after the war. Poles were supposed to be moved to Syberia. I would like You to take a look on two things;
1)Turks "deportating" Armenians, 1915
2)"Jews o Madagascar"
Bur Russians shouldn't complain. No big part of Russia was occupied, but Ukraine, Byelorussia etc. So their land wasn't as destroyed as Polish, Ukrainian etc.
And Russia would definitely have fallen without western help. As well as western powers would have failed without SU.

[The Vagabond]

Serb

Che

Originally posted by Stefu
Oh, I'd also be interested in hearing some kind of justification for Winter War. So -very- interested.

To move the border further north off Leningrad. Otherwise, Leningrad would not have withstood the Nazi siege.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Heresson
Bur Russians shouldn't complain. No big part of Russia was occupied, but Ukraine, Byelorussia etc. So their land wasn't as destroyed as Polish, Ukrainian etc.

What a silly argument. It was a single country back then.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
Ah, no 27mlns of Russian (rather Soviet) victims; 20mlns was the official version I believe, and Soviets counted into it all that they could; results of great famine in Ukraine were hidden before in stats, the war allowed them to get read of the difference and stats,
with profit to themselves.

It's the official stat of 50s when communist were in charge. Stalin's stats has even a fewer nombers because he was responsible for huge casulties. Some later stat (after collapse of SU) saying it was 50 millions of victims.

\Plans for Slavs were enslavement, but undoubtly Hitler would change his plans after the war. Poles were supposed to be moved to Syberia. I would like You to take a look on two things;

So, you want to defend Hitler?
I guess not.
You being Polish and I'm being Russian both should be dead in accordance with Hitler's plans.

Bur Russians shouldn't complain. No big part of Russia was occupied, but Ukraine, Byelorussia etc. So their land wasn't as destroyed as Polish, Ukrainian etc.

You think Ukraine was not part of SU?
And look at map again, everything from Moscow to Black Sea was conquered by Hitler. It was the most populated and the most industrialized part of the SU. Today Siberia and city where I live for example, is populated and industrialized only because of a factories and people were evacuated here during WW2.
nazi left our country laid in ruins, the most terrible and fierce battles of WW2 happen on our land. In Stalingrad big city (by that times) remained less then 10 undestroyed houses.

[Stefu]

To move the border further north off Leningrad. Otherwise, Leningrad would not have withstood the Nazi siege.

O'yes, Stalin's excuse. Sure, Stalin only wanted to protect Leningrad. That's why he established a puppet goverment composed of Finnish communists who had moved to Russia. That's why Stalin planned occupation of Finland. And let's not forget the secret articles of Molotov-Ribbentrop plan. Stalin was just using the lame excuse of protecting Leningrad in an effort to make us a vassal state.

Incidentally, Finns quickly retook the areas lost in Winter War and pushed farther than that in Continuation War. Leningrad still stood. Fancy that. Mannerheim refused to actively participate in siege of Leningrad or to cut traffic connections to Murmansk.