Historical borders of Finland

I'm not trying to start a new war to get the Russians out - for obvious reasons. Still it's not the same as saying it's perfectly ok to attack your neighbours and occupy their land.

"Protecting Saint Petersburg" was and is a bluff, which was used to reason the aim to restore the old borders of the Russian Empire - and getting pulp (the material for gunpowder) and energy from the Finnish power plants for the arm factories of Leningrad. Pure imperialism and greed, nothing more. World is full of capitols/major cities next to borders without problems.

You are (still) wrong here. The majority of the world (the UN included) is NOT made up of despots and tyrannies - as I proved to you earlier. Only abt 1/4 is. Maybe you forgot or don't want to accept the facts...? And many (most?) of those "despots and tyrannies" follow the opinions of the USA, since they are dependent on the US financial and political support!

The problem for the USA - as well as for China and Russia - is, that there's not enough of those obedient followers, tyrannies or not, to let the USA to have her (selfish) way on everything. The majority of the UN members are democracies, which luckily decide for themselves.

 

Not necessarily. It was unnecessary to demand for unconditional surrender and thus causing the total destruction of Germany (as well as much of the rest of Europe) and millions of extra German and Allied casualties.

It might have been possible to let the Germans know, that a peace without the Nazies could have been had. That might well have encouraged the Germans to rebel against the Nazi regime. Now the demand for unconditional surrender made sure, that practically all Germans wanted to continue fighting.

Ousting the Nazies and helping then Germany to keep the soviets in the East would have served the US national interest much better - leaving the USA as the ONLY world power. Now the actions of FDR helped the USSR to rise as the other world power - fighting against the US interests in everywhere and almost causing the destruction of the hole Earth! "Great" thinking by the FDR...

 

As already explained here, it was the US industry which helped the USSR to industrialize in the 30's - and thus to modernize her military. Although the US government was not directly involved it could have prevented it - as did most of the European countries - but chose not to do so.

As I explained before, the USA was OVER-supplying. It's one thing to get rid of the Nazies and other to continue helping the other equally evil empire to become as a world dominating force.

 

Here you don't understand the situation. Finland was never part of Russia as such - although the last and the most incapable monarch Nikolai II tried to chance this 1899-1917 - nor were the Finns technicly as Russian citizens. Finland was an autonomous Grand Duchy, meaning that Finland was governed by her own parliament (the Senate) - by the Finnish (old Swedish) laws - which answered straight to the sovereign, the Grand Duke of Finland (the Emperor) - who also was the Czar of Russia among others. Finland was never governed by Russian government.

The part of the Finnish Karelia, which was robbed by the USSR in 1940 and 1944, was not Russian land. The private ownership does not vanish with the change of borders. Feel free to consult any lawyer.

 

Actually you didn't. What you proved was that if we accept one possible defintion of degree of constraints on freedom then ~1/4 of the world isn't "free". If we use other possible and indeed reasonable defintions then the numbers change. However the degree of freedom isn't just a matter of form of government (which the terms despot and tyranny are reflective of). Furthermore in that previous conversation we were talking about numbers of countries as the MOE. Kodiak may or may not have meant to use the same MOE.

 

You have sources which show that most European countries did so in the 30's? If so pls present them.

 

Of course everything depends on the definition. Since nothing is black and white - democracy included - we can all make our own definitions to suit our purposes.

I chose to stick to common definitions used by researchers rather that creating my own according to my believes:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/freedom_country_ranks_2011.html

According to it 47 countries out of 193 are "not free", i.e. 24,4 %. Other countries are classified as "free" of "partly free", which for me means that those countries are not "tyrannies".

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Many so-called democracies are merely one party states where the opposition is a controlled and powerless minority useful only for the propaganda aspect. The link below gives a figure of 45% for UN members who are democracies; that's rather high since it includes those one party nations that I describe above that only tolerate an opposition as a pretense. Other sources indicate about 1/3rd of the world is free.

One look at the membership of the UN Human Rights Commission (now Human Rights Council) over the last decades demonstrates what a joke the UN is. Those members number some of the most abusive regimes on the planet! China, Syria, Libya, , Mauritania, Angola - really? These are the UN Human Rights watchdogs?

http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/EYEontheUN/un_101/facts/?p=16

 

Tried to find them, but was not really able to yet. Here's anyway some sources linked to the topic.

1934: "In addition, FDR broke a 16-year-old diplomatic freeze with the SOVIET UNION by extending formal recognition. Roosevelt hoped to settle some nettlesome outstanding issues with the Soviets, and at the same time stimulate bilateral trade."

http://www.ushistory.org/us/50a.asp

"Although the United States withheld recognition until 1933, private American firms began to extend technological assistance and develop commercial links beginning in the 1920s."

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Soviet1.html

"At its founding, the Soviet Union was considered a pariah by most governments because of its communism, and as such was denied diplomatic recognition by most states."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Soviet_Union

"In October 1929 diplomatic relations USSR-England, that had been broken up in May, 1927, were restored.

In 1930-1931 Soviet-France relationship became very tense.

French government accused Soviet Russia in interfering into its internal affairs. In 1932 a mutual non-offence agreement was signed between Soviet Russia and France. "

http://russia.rin.ru/guides_e/7120.html

It was also the isolationist policy of the USSR which stopped the connections with the West. It might be, that the European powers did not actually prevent the trade as such anymore in the 30's but did not encourage it either. However have seen a few documents which clearly stated the importance of the US industrial know-how and trade in development of the soviet industry.

 

No. That they are "partially free" doesn't mean that they aren't a "tyranny". You have made up your own definition when you state that "tyranny" equates to "not free". That certainly doesn't match up with the historical definition by any means. Furthermore there are a number of monarchies where the rulers have a great deal of power so they could qualify as "despots" or "tyrants" yet they allow their citizens a considerable amount of freedom. Forthermore there are a number of "democracies" where personal freedom may exist in theory but doesn't in practice. So it's not at all unreasonable that one rejects your defintion and thus negates your "proof".

 

At that point time the US was in the forefront as far as modern inustry goes. One certainly wouldn't have gone to say Spain to look for it would one? Most of the Eurpean powers seem to have normalized relations with the USSR during the early 30's and at some point the Germans even contributed a fair amount to Soviet industrialization. Given the economic situation in the mid and early 30s I don't see any government restricting activities that might increase national wealth without an overwhelming reason to do so. that's not to say that some didn't institute policies that had that effect but that's a different matter.

 

As I have written before a country which is not "fully free" is not automatically a "tyranny" either.

Of course the UN is not perfect, since it's members are not. However it is much better to have all countries included than not, since it is still better way to improve the democracy and human rights than to leave the "bad apples" outside. The same applies with the Human Rights Council. FYI - the USA is not perfect in human rights issues either...

For the Human Rights the (often) selfish behavior of China, the USA and Russia in the Security Council is much bigger problem than those dictatorships in the Human Rights Council.

 

It's not "my" definition, as you should have noticed.

 

Is that like being partially pregnant?

If the majority can't elect a leader, then it is a nation of slaves.

Again, I direct your attention to the UN Human Rights Council. The fact that the UN (through its democratic means) appoints the nations with the worst human rights records on the planet to sit on this council makes it clear that this organization can't be trusted on anything.

 

1. True.

2. No Spain but surely France and the UK .

3. Yes, Germany later but the USA before that.

4. Maybe so, but my original message was that the USA over-supplied the soviets in the WW2 - and that the US industrial co-operation which helped the soviets to build up their military machine started already long before the war.

 

This proposal sounds like yet another ethnic cleansing? Where the citizens of Russian Republic of Karelia should be detained before expulsion towards east? I hope you're joking but this isn't funny,

 

1. No

2. Not necessarily

3. Maybe the rules for the membership of the Human Rights Council should be changed then? Your "conclusion" is however just typical US anti-UN propaganda - not agreed with by the majority of the real democracies of the World.

 

Did you really read my post?! Here it's again - with my emphasizes:

"...And as I wrote before, we would prefer to get our land back without the overstayed guests but could settle for a some kind of compromise. "

And you are STILL ranting about the "Republic" of Karelia (=East Karelia), which I still am NOT talking about - only the part of the FINNISH Karelia (=West Karelia) robbed by the USSR in 1940 and 1944. Not the same area!

FYI: the 420.000 Finns (12 % of the nation) living in the part of FINNISH Karelia who were forced to leave had only couple of days to leave...

Am not joking but your ignorance is not funny either...

 

I understand you perfectly as I also live at the border of the former Empire (Reich). After each war some people remained across the border or left and territories were lost. Yet I'm not throwing toys out of pram.

1941 was a year of big gamble. Several nations have played on a single card anticipating a prey after dissolution of Russia. Then came disappointment after loosing a war and territories. That happens if you end a war at the wrong side. "Stolen" or "Lost" territories, whatever you like, are lost for ever. Every plan of action has associated risks. Bear it however hard that might be. That's the way life is.

PS: What you call "Finnish Karelia" is today a part of " Republic of Karelia" (Респу́блика Каре́лия). That is geographical fact. Who doesn't understand here?

 

The "rules" are that the nations of the UN vote for who sits on the council. That the majority vote for such nations indicates what a UN vote is worth - nothing. Nothing at all.