"It's amazing how absolutely tenacious the Finns are - the men in the field are fighting against overwhelming odds and they know it, their equipment just keeps dwindling and dwindling (artillery shells, Bofors guns etc.) while their foe seems to have an endless supply of tanks and airplane to replace whatever it is they do manage to destroy. They're kept on the front lines for weeks on end, taking more and more losses - all while fresh Soviet divisions keep getting rotated to fight them, rendering the massive casualties they inflict on the attackers almost meaningless.
And yet, they hold and hold and hold until their enemies literally park their tanks in front of the bunkers, or send sappers to blow in their poisitions. They hold for as long as they are ordered, either dying in their posts or retreating in good order once command wills it.
No one breaks. No ones flees. No units rout. No matter what."
Don't tell me those men lost the war. They kept their countrymen and their country independent, not suffering the same fate as the Baltic countries.
Allowing their country to become one of the happiest, safest, most trustworthy, most prrosperous, most well being, least corrupt, most well educated, eco-friendly, most tolerant, most equal, most stable, most free, least organised crime, most socially just....
The writer exaggerates somewhat, we had defectors and deserters too.
The funny thing with the defectors was that more often than not the soviets shot them anyway - they thought they'd have no need for them.
Wyatt Ross
Source for that pasta?
Leo Young
yeah except eu and lefties ruined this country, if this shit keeps going on I refuse to defend this shithole anymore. I'll move to czechs maybe, at least there they understand freedom
does that toy even work in pic related environment? I mean seriously I have nothing against ar's they feel quite nice, but everytime there have been ar's at the range in winter, some of them always jam in one way or another. Some jams not bad, but once some guy had to leave because he couldn't open the bolt anymore. What does it take to get an ar to work in the winter here? I'm curious because I want a .223 or 9mm carbine for competition but based on what I've seen I simply cannot trust ar's for half of the year
>literally sucking at samefag detection in 2000+19 lame
Austin Davis
not saying that the Finns aren't god-tier at fighting, but: >their equipment just keeps dwindling and dwindling (artillery shells, Bofors guns etc.) to be fair, we did try to keep it from dwindling:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_intervention_in_the_Winter_War the Swedish military sent enormous amounts of aid to Finland, including: Approximately 2 billion crowns (US$ ~312,658,890) of financial aid - twice the size of the Finnish defense budget at the time. 50,013,300 rounds of small arms ammunition 135,402 rifles 450 light machine guns 347 machine guns 301,846 artillery shells 144 field guns 92 anti-armor guns 100 anti-aircraft guns 300 sea mines 500 depth charges 83 motorcycles 83 cars 350 trucks 13 tractors 17 fighter aircraft 5 light bombers 1 transport aircraft 3 reconnaissance aircraft
>defectors Aren't you supposed to run the opposite way from the enemy ?
Landon Jackson
brings dear to my eye :'DDDDDDDDDD
James Miller
.5 mummonmarkka's have been deposited to your account
Josiah Hill
There was a civil war complete with purges and mass executions, a couple of decades before the soviet invasion - reds (communist and cobelligerents - factory workers, landless peasants, and other sorts of downtrodden people) versus whites (land-owning farmers, business owners, etc. - folks who were well off and didn't want to see societal reform). It left a pretty deep divide, and while the soviet invasion forced people to let bygones be bygones, there was a fairly significant hardline communist component to the population.
Some of these guys were fully buying into the soviet "workers' paradise" thing and as soon as they got deployed to the front, they slipped away into the night, walked east and surrendered to the first guy they ran into.
You can guess how that went with the rampant paranoia that ran through the entire soviet military at the time...
Mason Bennett
And now that I've drank enough and understand your question - deserters run away from the enemy; defectors run to the enemy.
John Lee
>surrender to Russia twice within a single world war >good fighters
Lucas Stewart
Literally a finn tho, I was just taking landscape photos untill I realised it was shitoposting
Luis Robinson
I too watch the WWII in real time YouTube channel.
>more than 4x the casualties but the Soviets still won! Shut up tankie.
Landon Bailey
>Daily reminder that f*nland never won a war. Whats your argument for that thought? They certainly didn't surrender to the soviets, ie. neither did Stalin win.
Xavier Nelson
>Surrender is still surrender And the Finns didn't surrender.
There was a peace treaty. Huge difference.
Landon Ortiz
The war is less about the Finns being supersoldiers soldiers and more about Russians being exceptionally braindead subhuman scum
Andrew Watson
The Germans killed even more Russians and still lost.
Nicholas Robinson
>agree to Soviet demands >BUT THAT'S NOT SURRENDER!!!!!! *angrily smashes head in mämmi bowl*
Julian Young
Germany surrendered, Finland didn't
Germany failed to reach their own war goals against Soviets, Soviets failed the same against Finland.
Connor Nelson
>doesn't know difference between peace treaty and surrender
Ayden Adams
>USA DIDN'T LOSE VIETNAM
Jack Morgan
The US went in on behalf of Republic of Vietnam, which lost. ie. US failed to reach their goal of supporting their ally against communist aggression.
Jackson Ortiz
And Finns failed their objective of keeping Carelia.
Henry Ward
USA´s goal was to root communism out of Vietnam or at mininum, contain it to the north. Outcome: Communists took over whole country
Finland´s goal was to remain independent. Outcome: Finland remained independent, though lost 10% of it´s land.
Kevin Perez
The Finnish goal was retaining independence and Stalin's goal was liquidation of Finnish state and intelligentsia
Stalin was the one who had to defeat their opposition to win
When did the Soviets ever say they wanted to fully annex Finland? When they declared war they wanted Carelia, minor other regions and some harbors.
Connor Hall
>When did the Soviets ever say they wanted to fully annex Finland? Read the molotov-ribbentrop, its literally, I mean literally, right there, signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop, here is image of Stalin shaking hands with Ribbentrop whos negotiating on behalf of Germany
Evan Morales
>when did the soviets ever say they wanted to fully annex >baltic states >poland >romania >hungary >bulgaria (who was literally not even in the war)
Jaxon Davis
How can anyone call this a win? At best it's a limited a defeat
Connor Ward
Sphere of influence doesn't mean property of.
Nathaniel Wright
For USSR, certainly, as they were the ones with goal of dissolving Finland and doing Katyn to their officer corps, teachers, proferssors, doctors, industrial magnates and land owners
Brandon Flores
It does when you do it by literally murdering everyone saying otherwise and you do it by complete military occupation of the country.
Or why did Russian tanks enter Hungary when the locals wanted to get rid of communists?
Why did Russia ever occupy Bulgaria btw? Bulgaria was not even in the war.
Christian Richardson
And for Finland, they were unable to maintain sovereignty over their entire nation
Anthony Foster
Bulgaria supported the Germans on the Balkans so why spare them for being nazi allies?
Aaron Brown
Finns lost, period. t. finn However it wasn't a total defeat. Finland kept it's independence, something that no other country succeeded in. So finland lost but kept its independence, which is a victory in it's own. However we paid the price for that
Alexander Collins
>they were unable to maintain sovereignty over their entire nation It appears to me english is neither your native or secondary language as the words you output signal Finland was fully occupied.
There were only three countries in europe involved in WW2 that didn't have their capitals occupied: Great-Britain, Finland and USSR.
Lucas Foster
>Finns lost, period. t. finn Oliko äijä tajuton historiantunneilla? Rauhansopimus ei ole sama asia kuin viholliselle antautuminen
Eli Scott
Onko äijä aivokuollut? Voittajat ei maksa toiselle osapuolelle korvauksia. Rauhansopimus tehtiin vastapuolen ehdoilla, muussa tapauksessa sota olis jatkunu.
Josiah Long
Why are you moving the goal posts?
Jonathan Sullivan
>ei tiedä antautumisen ja rauhansopimuksen eroa Tosiaan, historianopetus ja yheiskuntaoppi alkaa vasta ylä-asteella nykyään..
Evan Reed
You're the one claiming Finland was fully occupied
Adrian Ortiz
Niin mutta luetunymmärtäminen jo eskarissa. Meeppä jo nukkumaan nii jaksat leikkiä huomenna.
Gavin Scott
Eli siis minä päivämääränä Suomi antautui Neuvostoliitolle?
Benjamin Lopez
I'm claiming that Finland was unable to maintain sovereignty over their ENTIRE nation. They were only able to maintain sovereignty over MOST of their nation.
But you're probably now going to make the argument that Finns living in lost territory weren't true Finns or the territory wasn't that important
Zachary Bennett
You don't know what a nation is.
Wyatt Nguyen
>I'm claiming that Finland was unable to maintain sovereignty over their ENTIRE nation. This would mean Finland was fully occupied.
Cameron Powell
>the lost territory wasn't ACTUALLY Finnish There it is
Now we're just arguing semantics
Samuel Cook
Sulla on siis ihan oikeesti jotai vikaa ymmärryksessä. Johan mä sanoin että RAUHANSOPIMUS tehtiin neuvostoliiton ehdoilla ja tämän asian voit hyvin nopealla googlauksellakin itse todeta. Oliko sulla jotain lisättävää aiheeseen "yksipuolinen rauhansopimus", vai vieläkö yrität inttää jotain antautumisesta, mistä en oo sanallakaan maininnut aikaisemmin.
Michael Hill
Rauhansopimus, kun osapuolina ovat sodan alussa olleet osapuolet, tarkoittaa että molemmat poliittiset entiteetit ovat olemassa sodan tullessa loppuun. Kun toisen osapuolen tavoitteena oli toisen osapuolen olemassaolon lopettaminen tarkoittaa että he eivät onnistuneet tavoitteissan joka on ehtona toisen häviämiselle. Esimerkkinä hävinneestä osapuolesta katso tapaus Puola.
Charles Miller
FInlands ultimate war goal was the preservation of the nation, aka not getting eaten by the soviets. They largely achieved and managed to go through the cold war largely as a neutral country, thats a victory far more rewarding than the soviets.
Nation and territory are two different things fucko.
Robert Hill
Rauhansopimus oli silti täysin yksipuolinen neuvostoliiton hyväksi, johon suomella ei ollut sanavaltaa. Voit terminologisesti kutsua tätä sopimusta ihan miksi lystäät. Sama kun osottaisit jotakuta aseella, sanot että anna rahat ja kerrot myöhemmin että hän antoi rahat sulle vapaaehtoisesti.
Carter Kelly
>Now we're just arguing semantics Dude, there is a distinct difference between saying your body armor failed partially and failed completely
>johon suomella ei ollut sanavaltaa. Tämähän ei muuten pidä lainkaan paikkaansa. Jos haluat esimerkin osapuolesta jolla ei ollut sanovaltaa katso tapaus Puola.
Oletko Suomessa? Voidaanko tavata jossain julkisella paikalla? Haluan nähdä että olet oikea ihminen.
Henry Davis
>pictures of pointing guns at the landscape Wow what a badass
Anthony Barnes
No kerro minkälaisia korvauksia suomi vaati neuvostoliitolta ja mitä me niiltä vielä saatiin?
Julian Allen
Not him, but can body armor partially fail? Either the bullet was stopped or it wasn't
Hudson Richardson
Sittemmin Neuvostoliiton arkistot on avattu ja jopa Neuvostoliittolaispoliitikot ovat myöntäneet mainilan laukausten olleen Neuvostoliiton valhe. Korvausvelvollisuus perustui tähän. Jos asia menisi riippumattomaan tuomioistuimeen tänään Suomi ei maksaisi penniäkään mutta itsenäisyys säilyisi edelleen.
Edelleen, voidaanko tavata jossain julkisella paikalla?
Camden Butler
>body armor partially fails >bullet goes partially through but gives only a minor wound vs >body armor fails completely >bullet goes straight through and kills you Must be pretty interesting living with a boolean mindset on every single thing
Charles Sullivan
That's what being Russian does to your brain
Tyler Sanchez
What if bullet goes partially through but kills you? Or if bullet goes straight through and doesn't kill you?
Blake Howard
>I'm claiming that Finland was unable to maintain sovereignty over their ENTIRE nation. If you say you fail to prevent current from passing through your whole body it means it passed through your heart
If you fail to prevent current from passing through small part of your body it could mean just the skin of your fingertip
Siis tästä asiasta on ihan turha väitellä. Neuvostoliitto saneli mitä korvauksia suomi antaa rauhansopimuksessa ja suomi maksoi kaikki korvaukset, ainoana palkkiona oman itsenäisyyden pitäminen. Miksi puhut nykypäivästä, kun tämä asia tapahtui 80 vuotta sitten? Asiassa ei yksinkertaisesti ole mitään keskusteltavaa.
Charles Evans
>says there is nothing to discuss about >keeps discussing it, goes wildly off-tangent, refuses to acknowledge the reasons why the items in treaty were what they were >ignores requests to meet in public You should know Stalin literally had over 9000 immigrant red finns shot, Putin isn't any more reliable.
>tell that only finland paid compensation to ussr in the peace treaty >starts talking about poland and how this would be different if it happened today Niin kerro nyt vaan ihan suoraan mikä on väärin väitteessä "suomi maksoi korvaukset neuvostoliitolle moskovan rauhansopimuksessa"? Ehkä asia olisi toisin nykypäivänä? Mitä ajat takaa?
Colton Hughes
This guy can produce finnish language text communication but he can't even begin to make me believe his nationality is Finnish
