So um, last time I checked the EU didn’t force any of its members with invasions and occupations and ultimatums to join and they sure as fuck didn’t force the UK to stay, which the same can absolutely not be said about the USSR. Also there is a big difference between an economic area and a military treaty and a political union. Brussels is not micromanaging the entire EU, while Moscow was doing just that in the USSR. It was one big country with the smaller countries acting as states, not as independent entities under the same big umbrella.
Also Finland was Absolutely invaded by the Soviets. Twice even. And it was partly justified by Stalin’s dissatisfaction about the fact that the Soviets had failed to stop Finland’s independence because that relationship was absolutely not hunky dory like you seek to think it was. Like where did you think molotovs come from? And speaking of Molotov, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact kinda made it clear what the Soviets thought was their territory and it included the Baltics as well as Finland. And if you consider the occupation and deportation and assimilation of the Baltic states into the USSR as a “consentual” thing, by that logic then Poland was a willing member of the Nazi empire because hey, it’s from the same pact outlining the two regimes sphere of influence with similar outcomes.
And that’s during WW2. Threat of an invasion from the USSR is literally why NATO was founded, and why the USSR forced Finland to remain neutral.
Once again diprount_tomato was talking about countries outside of the u.s.s.r., those inside were there before, sometimes for centuries.
But even inside the u.s.s.r., they weren’t forced to stay once it dislocated, despite being much more integrated than the u.k. ever was, not sure we could tell the same about the u.s.a. if one of your states decided to leave
For Finland, you’re absolutely right for the first link you provided about the Winter war, thank you very much for the correction, i already knew about the Molotov cocktails named after their enemy so i should have remembered, seems like they were still salty about this loss of territory, i.d.k., yet i also provided arguments in favor of an initial “hunky dory” relation, it’s possible that it degraded over time for reasons other than merely territorial, perhaps like in Ukraine, i wouldn’t be surprised if Finland was used as an anti-communist spearhead and that security reasons weren’t that much of an excuse. Some further reading would need to be done.
As for the baltic states, they were in the russian empire as well, before the u.s.s.r., you can’t blame them for refusing to destroy everything once they took power, we wouldn’t have done so in their position.
And once again Poland wasn’t part of the u.s.s.r., cf. my remarks on the puppet states if that’s the road you want to take. I could agree that states of the Warsaw pact were influenced by their leaders just like countries in the n.a.t.o. are influenced by their american leader.
What you called soviet invasion and american liberation would have been called exactly the opposite by the french communists.
So um, last time I checked the EU didn’t force any of its members with invasions and occupations and ultimatums to join and they sure as fuck didn’t force the UK to stay, which the same can absolutely not be said about the USSR. Also there is a big difference between an economic area and a military treaty and a political union. Brussels is not micromanaging the entire EU, while Moscow was doing just that in the USSR. It was one big country with the smaller countries acting as states, not as independent entities under the same big umbrella.
Also Finland was Absolutely invaded by the Soviets. Twice even. And it was partly justified by Stalin’s dissatisfaction about the fact that the Soviets had failed to stop Finland’s independence because that relationship was absolutely not hunky dory like you seek to think it was. Like where did you think molotovs come from? And speaking of Molotov, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact kinda made it clear what the Soviets thought was their territory and it included the Baltics as well as Finland. And if you consider the occupation and deportation and assimilation of the Baltic states into the USSR as a “consentual” thing, by that logic then Poland was a willing member of the Nazi empire because hey, it’s from the same pact outlining the two regimes sphere of influence with similar outcomes.
And that’s during WW2. Threat of an invasion from the USSR is literally why NATO was founded, and why the USSR forced Finland to remain neutral.
Once again diprount_tomato was talking about countries outside of the u.s.s.r., those inside were there before, sometimes for centuries. But even inside the u.s.s.r., they weren’t forced to stay once it dislocated, despite being much more integrated than the u.k. ever was, not sure we could tell the same about the u.s.a. if one of your states decided to leave
For Finland, you’re absolutely right for the first link you provided about the Winter war, thank you very much for the correction, i already knew about the Molotov cocktails named after their enemy so i should have remembered, seems like they were still salty about this loss of territory, i.d.k., yet i also provided arguments in favor of an initial “hunky dory” relation, it’s possible that it degraded over time for reasons other than merely territorial, perhaps like in Ukraine, i wouldn’t be surprised if Finland was used as an anti-communist spearhead and that security reasons weren’t that much of an excuse. Some further reading would need to be done.
As for the baltic states, they were in the russian empire as well, before the u.s.s.r., you can’t blame them for refusing to destroy everything once they took power, we wouldn’t have done so in their position.
And once again Poland wasn’t part of the u.s.s.r., cf. my remarks on the puppet states if that’s the road you want to take. I could agree that states of the Warsaw pact were influenced by their leaders just like countries in the n.a.t.o. are influenced by their american leader. What you called soviet invasion and american liberation would have been called exactly the opposite by the french communists.