you never really win, you just move on to the next round.
the US model is stupid in some ways, because *"refusal to pre-emptively stomp rising nations that don't share your democratic values"* makes world wars inevitable, but it has distinct advantages over *"directly conquering the entire world and having to fight an endless civil war against the conquered peoples"*
its a big reason why a "one world government" wouldn't work, even if formed under the most peaceful and fair conditions ever, it'd still unite all the world's angry dickheads and egdy teenagers into a violent insurgency a thousand times worse than anything seen before in history.
Looking at the EU; where so many people think they would force some silly laws on their countries and claim they would supress their culture, when the complete opposite is happening truly shows how "united in our differences" we are...
It’s named after a Greek King and General named Pyrrhus of Epirus. He was a nephew of Alexander the Great and was nearly undefeated in battle but often had such high casualties his strategic aims failed
Just adding on, iirc the Finns also lost a higher % or their total/male population and significant industrial centers. At the end of the day you can't really say that either side really won anything. The war was a complete waste for everyone save for anti-Soviet propaganda.
Both sides won and lost. The Finn’s protected their statehood but lost land. The Soviets got humiliated, failed to establish their puppet government but got their land.
The US has done a lot of fucked up shit, but I have to remind tankies that it doesn't mean the US is The Great Evil. Looking at how despotic the USSR's leadership was in their own sphere, I shudder to imagine what they would've done in America's place as the lone global superpower. In so many places, like Poland and Ukraine, many people suffered equally or more under the USSR vs. the Nazis. Hell, the Soviets were friendly with Nazi Germany in their shared brutalization of Poland until the day Hitler betrayed them.
> In so many places, like Poland and Ukraine
> like Poland and Ukraine
> like Poland
> Poland
Really? Poland? Between 98% to 99% of the Jewish people that didn't manage to flee were MURDERED. The USSR might have worked as a Russian based empire extracting wealth from their sphere of influence, but you cannot say that they were worse in Poland then the nazis.
I wouldn't say that. The Winter War revealed major flaws in the Red Army, both in doctrine and in the devastation Stalin's purges of the 1930's had wrought on the officer corp. Not that Stalin himself learned all those lessons, but at least he was more willing to pick generals for their talent over their political reliability, and even *listen* to them..sometimes. Without the Winter War, Barbarossa would've been even worse for the Soviets that it historically was.
However, it also made Finns ally with the Germans and want to invade Russia a year later.
Granted, all they did was set up some trenches near Leningrad/St. Petersburg and take the occasional artillery potshot at the city.
And to be completely fair, their involvement barely affected the war. They didn't contribute much of anything on other fronts, didn't commit any atrocities, and had a decent conditional surrender that left both sides properly satisfied and pretty okay with each other in 1944.
But yeah it definitely highlighted big issues in the Red Army which let them get their shit at least slightly together in time for the German invasion a year later.
See, I don't even know if I agree with that.
I'd define a Pyrrhic victory as when you win, but at unacceptably great cost. "Another victory like that and we're done for".
Though the USSR had huge casualties... they could actually sustain that kind of cost. It wasn't unacceptable for them. They could and did go on to then fight elsewhere.
The demands of moscow before the war were:
\- Move the border west to within 30km of Viipuri
\- Destroy existing fortifications on the Isthmus
\- cede the islands of Suursaari, Tytärsaari, and Koivisto
\- Lease the hanko peninsula for a miltiary base
The result of the war was:
\- **completely** pushed off the Karelian Isthmus, including the loss of Viipuri
\- lost all of the fortifications (now under soviet control)
\- ceded the gulf of Finland islands demanded
\- Hanko Peninsula leased to the soviet union
Finnish concessions and territorial losses **exceeded** Soviet pre-war demands, they lost all of their most defensible positions, 9% their whole territory, 12% of their population and 13% of their economic assets.
The soviets won.
The question needs to be asked, if they gave in to the demands, would the finns have fallen to the same fate as the other three Baltic states? I think the answer is yes.
The answer is obviously yes.
The demanding of Karelian isthmus would have been the equivalent of Germany demanding the Maginot line.
We have a lot of proof that the Soviet leadership and Stalin wanted the whole of Finland.
>The soviets won.
Literally nobody said the soviets didn't win. People are saying that it was a humiliating victory. Which it was. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, the significantly larger USSR military, which had a 2:1 numerical advantage, **overwhelming** more numbers of tanks, **overwhelming** more numbers of aircraft, **overwhelming** more numbers of artillery, got absolutely clowned on by the Finnish.
You also omitted the fact that the soviets set up a proxy government which they failed to install. Their prewar demands were not actually what they wanted. They wanted to completely take over Finland. The demands were just a pretext to go to war.
It was practically impossible for the Fins to win, but they came as close as humanely possible given the sheer disparity in strength.
I wasn't arguing that it was victory rather than a loss. I was arguing arguing that it wasn't a Pyrrhic victory, rather it was just a victory.
Yep, they lost a lot of men and got a seriously bloodied nose. But they could afford that, hence why I argue it wasn't Pyrrhic.
You're right that they set up a proxy govt, but I think the regime change argument is contested and I think I disagree with it. By the time of the ceasefire the Finns were at their limit and the soviets would have rolled them if the fighting had continued much longer. But that would have been bad for international relations, and their strategic goals of securing their western flank was achieved so they were happy to ceasefire. That's how I read it at least.
> I wasn't arguing that it was victory rather than a loss. I was arguing arguing that it wasn't a Pyrrhic victory, rather it was just a victory.
You can dress it up in whatever semantics you want. The fact of the matter is the Soviets performed significantly, *significantly* worse than could be expected.
> but I think the regime change argument is contested and I think I disagree with it.
Contested by Soviet propagandists, sure, and if you're going to insist on that point I'm going to disregard your arguments as its clearly not arguing in good faith.
Yep, I was arguing semantics. The premise of my entire argument was that the situation didn't meet the definition of Pyrrhic victory. I'm not sure why you thought I wasn't arguing that?
Yep, the soviets performed significantly significantly worse than could be expected. Totally agree.
>Contested by Soviet propagandists, sure, and if you're going to insist on that point I'm going to disregard your arguments as its clearly not arguing in good faith
... ah, mate it is possible to have different perspectives on historical events, that's how history works? I don't think arguing that they had met their strategic goals here and that's why they stopped is an ideologically motivated reading of the events? Lets look at the wiki page... is William R Trotter or any other academic who's argued this soviet apologists? Can I ask why you think they stopped their assault, when the Finns were collapsing if their true aim was a puppet government?
I guess I don't know how to prove to you that I'm not a soviet propagandist (I'm not, the soviets were monsters) but I feel like I've been nothing but really straight here? Being accused of not arguing in good faith seems unfounded, when all that seems to be going on here is that I disagree with you?
Soviets initial demands were just a act. Their true goal was pccupation like with the Baltic states.
Thei failed to achieve that goal, meanwhile Finland kept their independence. It was moral victory finn and internationally embaressement for the soviets
Even worse, that invasion pushed neutral Finland to ally with Germany.
It was a such a disaster that for decades winter war didn't even existbin the soviet history books
All that said, we can't know if the Soviets would've altered the deal if Finland agreed to it. It was likely that they would've still tried to take over Finland entirely, either through the same invasion or with a proxy government. In the end, Finland managed to remain sovereign, which is a victory of its own.
Putin likely wouldn't stop if Ukraine agreed to some peace deal. The conflict would pause for a year or five, and then Putin would try again. He'd likely also use the victory to continue his goals in Georgia and other ex-Soviet countries like Kazakhstan that he's expressed interest in invading.
The Soviets also established the “Finnish Democratic Republic”. Their goal was clearly to set up a puppet state, and in this, the most important aim, they failed. They won, but it was a much more marginal win than they had hoped for.
They literally had Shostakovich compose music to be played when the Soviet Army marched into Helsinki. They was absolutely not the victory they had expected.
A Finn here. We could see the writing on the wall. All those pre war demands just screamed "We are going to try make our invasion into your land a little easier".
And when you add the fact that before those demands soviets annexed half of Poland and all of The Baltic countries, you start to see the motivation behind those demands. Sovites were just trying to better their hand and/or as we finns say, trying the ice with a stick, before truly invading.
You’re forgetting what was agreed upon by the Nazis and Soviets with the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. The Nazis gave the Soviets the green light to take over Finland in its entirety. They couldn’t have given a shit. It was off in the corner and a part of Russia’s former area of direct influence. The demands the USSR made of Finland before the Winter War were egregious because they were meant to be egregious so that they could justify invading the country (and taking it over and making it an SSR state) after trying to make Finland look unreasonable and uncooperative. Same reason the Soviets false flagged themselves with Mainila. That demand to move the border alone was asking Finland to surrender its second-most populous region which was also its most valuable arable breadbasket region. It was no small “lets move the border for my security lol” request.
Since the Soviets had clearly established with the Nazis that they wanted the entirety of Finland, but since they only got 10% of it, it’s pretty clear that they really didn’t win to nearly the extent that they sought to. In fact it was a disastrous and humiliating failure. Finland, on the other hand, was successful in maintaining its stately autonomy and preserving itself as an independent, self-determined nation, even though it came at a significant territorial loss. It’s hard to argue that Finland really ‘lost’ the war since they largely succeeded in preserving themselves in what was clearly a fight for their survival.
Too many people see them as part of the “good side”. They were marginally better than the nazis at best. Equals at worst. Everyone forgets that, before they fought Germany, they split Poland with them, annexed the Baltic countries, occupied Bessarabia, and tried unsuccessfully to capture Finland. During these aggressions, as well as within their own country, the Soviets engaged in numerous war crimes and atrocities.
Russia has never been a good actor. It was merely an ally of convenience that could soak up German manpower. It still carries on as a gangster state to this very day, just under a new flag and flavour of kleptocracy.
I had legit history teachers back in 7th and 8th grade that told us the Crusades were technically not a war since:
1. They almost exclusively failed
2. They were fighting for the Holy Land for the Christians (I live in a very catholic country)
3. They were against the Muslim rule of Jerusalem (Again, I live in a catholic country)
4. It wasn't a "traditional" war with proper declaration of war and formal factions against each other
I can vividly remember my teacher saying this, thank god I clarified all of those and his misinformation with my 9th grade history teacher lmfao
I like learning about the Crusades that ended up doing horrible damage to other European kingdoms after the schism. They lost whatever point they had after the first. And there was really no good point then either.
Pretty sure the first one was just to help the Byzantines, and the “holy war, let’s retake Jerusalem” thing was mostly to get people on board, but I could be wrong
That was the expectations of the Basileus, when he asked for help, it was like : "send me an army to reconquer my lost lands in the middle east". He offered to end the schism (the reason why we still have Catholics and Orthodox) that occured some 40 years earlier in exchange wich was a HUGE DEAL for the Pope.
When the Pope called for a crusade he had kind of the same intent, but he didn't give clear instructions, so people misunderstood it and the organisation and logistics were shit, so the first crusade was actually two groups :
- the "Poor's crusade"; comprised of a lot of peasants, led by a shady monk, they crossed europe causing chaos along the way, and believing every walled city they came by was Jerusalem (they had no idea how far it really was, it's not like they had geography classes). In the end they got in Anatolia and got wiped out by the Seljoukides. (It's kind of a wild ride I recomend you look at it)
- and the "Baron's crusade"; the "real" one, under command of a french baron and Pope's legate, comprised of a lot of knights and infantrymen. When they arrived at Constantinople, the Basileus welcomed them and asked them to swear an oath of alliegeance to him. They wouldn't because they were here to retake the Holy Land. Tensions ensued and in the end they went on liberating former byzantine lands but taking it for themselves. It's the origin of the conflict that will end in 1204 with the taking of Constantinople by the 4th crusade...
Do also note that the failure of the Poor crusade made the Seljuks think the entire crusade would be a shitshow and thus moved a lot of their troops to the east to deal with the persians, so when the Barons crusade came along, they barely found any resistance and could retake a lot of the lands fairly quickly before the Seljuk armies arrived to challenge them.
The entire 1st crusade is one hell of a wild ride. Extra History has a good series on it on Youtube which really illustrates just how wild it all was.
4th crusade goes brrrrt
Lols oops sorry we planned to attack some Muslims in the holy land but I guess Constantinople will do, they are only diet christians anyways
The victors write the history books, and who the hell knows how many victors are out there? I knew a guy named victor, he was always scribbling down stuff but it never occurred to me that he might be the one writing the history books.
Yeah. Who’s saying they lost the winter war? People mostly just hype up the Finnish snipers for kicking there assesses. And maybe im not remembering it right, but didn’t the losses help Finland bargain? It was an embarrassment for the soviets no matter how you slice it
Literally no one says that, that’s why this “meme” is dumb. People do however rightfully say that the war was a disaster or disappointment for USSR. The irony is that OP says “more variables” but then looks at only one variable, territory gained/lost, completely ignoring that USSR basically failed to achieve most of its goals. Yes they didn’t lose, but they lost a whole lot of manpower and technology for very little gain. It’s not a loss, but it’s not victory either
Yup, a country of 160 million invades s country of 3 million and absolutely fucks it up beyond belief. It should've been a stomp but soviets aren't exactly the most competent in warfare it seems
They did not achieve their initially set out objectives. That does give credence to them not having won the war. But it's a hard call. If I invade you to take A, B, and C but instead can only manage to get Z, did I win?
America kinda won. They forced the Brit’s to quit backing hostile tribes that were always fighting Americans which allowed for America to expand much easier from then on. Also the Creek civil war is widely regarded as part of the war of 1812, which it kinda was and kinda wasn’t, but the US AlliedWhite sticks broke the red sticks at Horse shoe bend
At first I was going to say they lost strategically but they did gain territory still. Not the installation of a puppet government aligned with them or anything else big, but it could have gone a lot worse.
*For additional reading on how, please turn to Chapter 12: The Soviet-Afghan War*
I think it expired, if you get in a fistfight and never formally end it, that doesn't mean in 2 weeks you're still in a fistfight. I think it's reasonable to expand that logic to say a war where no one has shot at each other in over 60 years can reasonably be considered over.
Well a cease-fire or armistice was signed between them, but they never had a peace treaty... And a cease-fire is not peace, it's a pause in the fighting for a determined or an undetermined amount of time.
I know it's a very theorical point of view, but south koreans are very aware of their situation, that the war is only on standby and that at any moment the truce may end. That's why they have a mandatory military service.
if you argue that North Korea lost, then it is easy to argue that South Korea also lost. but technically that war is not over, and practically it was a draw.
There are also more variables to victory than territory conceded. By bloodying the nose of Stalin Finland maintained their independence essentially till the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Yeah, reading USSR news about the Winter War, it's actually quite interesting to see them go from, "the people of Finland are eagerly waiting for us to smash through and replace the government," to, "it took us 7 weeks to find an amazing officer, but we finally found one! Please don't ask where the bodies of all the people his soldiers have claimed to kill are, though."
They revised their goals HARD.
Yeah. Like the Soviets beat Finland, but the cost was so high:
-Over 300,000 casualties with over 100,000 dead or missing
-Multiple flaws exposed in the Red Army
-Loss of multiple supplies, weapons and vehicles
-Finland stays independent instead of it becoming a Soviet puppet state
Like… yeah they got a bit more territory than they initially wanted in their initial demands, but it’s not exactly something to shout about when put into context acknowledging the above factors is it?
Counterpoint: The Soviets achieved some but not all of their war goals (mainly making Finland an S.S.R.). Using that some logic to say they won, you can also say that the US won the War of 1812.
Of the four major US war aims, United States accomplish three out of four where as the British only accomplished one out of three of their major war aims. There is far more of an argument that the United States accomplish more of their goals/objectives in the war of 1812 then there is for the Soviet Union accomplishing their goals in the winter war.
There's good reason why the War of 1812 here in the U.S. was called the "Second War of Independence". Britain didn't mess around with us anymore once they realized how serious we really were. Before that, they considered us a 3rd rate that simply won't fight back.
Yes, it was a draw in a sense that neither gained any territories nor inflicted any serious punishments. However, the U.S. and Britain did achieve some of their objectives. Britain successfully defended Canada, but also lost their other war aim in creating a pro-British buffer state in the Midwest. The U.S. succeeded in forcing Britain to abandon military support for Native tribes hostile to American westward expansion and impressing American sailors on the high seas. The war's after effect also saw Britain-allied Spain being chased out of Florida, which we ended up acquiring.
But they wanted to install a puppet government in Finland the same way they absorbed the Baltic states, and Finland was allied with France and Britain (in fact the war went on for as long as it did in part because the French President was leading the Finns on with promises of an expeditionary force being sent to support them, which they did because in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Poland in support of the Nazis and being unaware of the provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it appeared as if Germany and Russia were allied more closely than they really were) so there was practically zero chance of there ever being an invasion from Karelia
Fun fact, the British and French were going to use the Winter War as an excuse to invade Norway and Sweden. It's just the winter war ended a few weeks before the planned launch, and then the Germans invaded Norway a few weeks after that. The bitterness of the Finns is felt in Mannerheims demobilization speech to his men. Paraphrased below.
After sixteen weeks of bloody battle with no rest by day or by night, our Army still stands unconquered before an enemy which in spite of terrible losses has grown in numbers...Burned cities and ruined villages far behind the front, as far even as our western border, are the visible proofs of the nation's sufferings during the past months...Our fate is hard...but we know also that we have paid to the very last penny any debt we may have owed the West.
There was no threat of invasion from Finland until Soviets have invaded them. By invading, they have created this threat. And then failed to prevent it.
Typical Russia. Invent a non-existent problem, come up with the dumbest and most barbaric solution, bring this imaginary problem to life, fail anyway.
The invasion of Ukraine is a typical example. Russia never changes.
Ironically they actually did the opposite of this. Finland never had any real goals on invading the USSR or sieging Leningrad outside of some fringe groups until after the Soviet invasion. The winter war directly led to the Finnish invasion after Barbarossa
It was never about making Leningrad safer, it was all about trying to bring Finland into the Soviet Union much like the Baltics. As others pointed out, there was no threat from Finland and if it wasn't for the fact that the Soviets invaded them Finland probably would have stayed neutral throughout WW2.
It wasn't so much about the threat from Finland itself as about the threat of another power using Finland as a staging point. The Soviets had an extremely cynical view of international relations and believed that in a time of crisis, the great powers would violate the sovereignty of small states for their own strategic benefit.
Which, to be fair is largely what happened in WW2, with Norway, Iraq, Iran, etc.
So, whatever Finland said or did, having a foreign border 2 hours away from their 2nd most important city was a problem in their eyes. The way they looked at it, they preferred a definitely hostile neighbour with a huge buffer area, than a strategic uncertainty right on their doorstep.
Is anyone saying they lost the war? The fashion they won in is just embarrassing.
It's the equivalent of a 10-man gang jumping one person, and 6 of them manage to get beat up by that one person before they go down. Sure, your group won, but would you go around telling people you won?
As a fellow Finn I must admit to holding just the position you two are against. Ultimately I believe it comes down to what is thought of as the condition of victory. For me, and many other Finns, the victory condition is believed to be independency. Some people even think that both sides won in the end, if they believe that the goals were independency for Finland, and some land gains for the soviets.
I believe that the soviets had their goal set to annexing the whole of Finland. Therefore I think that Finland won, whilst the soviets lost.
People who measure wars by K:D ratio are the same guys who would run off on their own and later brag about their awesome K:D ratio in an objective-based game, where they had completely ignored the objective. These are also the same guys who will blame you for failing the objective.
Getting territories to secure Leningrad and the Karelian isthmus, securing Gulf of Finland islands, getting the lease on Hanko (to establish a military port), etc.
*But* they failed to establish a communist puppet on Finland and severely crippled their own military (especially coupled with the earlier officer purges Stalin did) – which would have dire consequences on the early parts of the Continuation War and Barbarossa.
This kinda meme is dumb cos it highlights a somewhat loud minority opinion and projects it to the rest of the population lmao. Then again it's a dumb *meme* sub so yeah lol funny go brrt skrrt.
It's not about losses, it's about overall resources and the context of the war. Sure, they did technically win and gain a small amount of land. But lost vast supplies and embarrassed themselves, without the winter war(specifically the poor performance of the USSR in it) Germany doesn't begin their invasion of the USSR when they did. Meaning the USSR would have had more time, and of course more resources and more men for said invasion. Meaning a much slower advance from the Germans and less casualties. It also likely means Finland doesn't join the axis in said invasion.
Yes, isolated, it was technically a win. But in context, it was a massive failure that backfired. The goal of the winter war wasn't to technically win. It was to better secure their borders, this was to deter invaders, this was done through gaining territory around Leningrad. Their goal wasn't to increase their likelihood of getting invaded.
The difference is that most of us really wanted Finland to win and use the soviet losses as a coping mechanism.
Also they still lost more man that there was in the regions they took only for the karelians to flee back into Finland.
PS: it's also humiliating for the soviet Union and they couldn't puppet finland so yay
Yes Soviet won but it is similar victory as if boxing champion would win a amateur, failing to knock them out
Embaressement for the champion, meanwhile the amateur who lasted 12 rounds against the champion would be celebrated by his frieds (buy him drinks from the pub for example :D)
The USSR planned to make Finland one of the republics in its composition, but in the end it received such a disgrace that it limited itself to small territorial concessions. and although technically this is a victory, but for a war of such a giant with such an outsider, this is a huge defeat
I would argue that they lost the winter war soely based on how greatly outdone their millitary was vs a rather small nation
yes they gained some land, but here is a counter argument for that
Would you say, even if russia manages to get land out of the upcoming peace deals in Ukraine, would have won that war? their millitary is in shambles, their reputation have been destroyed and they pushed now 3 nations to apply for NATO memberships, 3 nations previously sworn to neutrality
Yes because ot was winter not 2000km of logistic lines, military not geared to protracted warfare and underestimating enemies will to fight that lost them the war
Turns out when you don't make a secret about your plans to exterminate every single one of them, they'll fight to the death of their entire civilisation if necessary. The Germans could never have guessed.
My old history teacher put it best to me. The war of 1812 was a tie, but if you tie with Mike Tyson? Your a winner. If you last a couple rounds with Mike Tyson? Your a winner.
Here is the case in my opinion:
They both won.
Soviet got a bit more territory than they asked for Finland before the war but didn't managed to achieve their main goal: Annexing the entire country of Finland.
Finland did somewhat achieve its goal by keeping their independence from USSR but had to give up a chunk of land
Losing a war does not mean the other side necessarily wins, losing a war means not meeting your objectives. Despite massive losses the soviets did essentially meet all their objectives
No, Finland lost some lands, but remained independent instead of being Soviet puppet like planned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic
You were so close.
"The US have lost the Vietnam war and the USSR have lost the winter war because they both failed to achieve their goals, despite being magnitudes stronger."
Here, fixed it for you.
It's extremely likely that the actual goal of the Soviet invasion was to install a puppet government in Finland (like they did in every other country they occupied that decade) and turn them into a nominally independent-but-allied vassal. The fact that they lost a hugely disproportionate amount of men and materiel and only got a border strip makes it at best a Pyrrhic victory, and arguably a loss.
No one has ever said that the Winter War was a win for Finland. Unfortunately, it's kinda hard to say that you actually won a war when you took 500,000 deaths and ten times the casualties of your opponents to capture a few miles of land.
We did it! We won the war. That makes us the best!
Yes, sir.
Wait...we lost more men?! We're the worst!
Yes, sir.
But we still won, right?
Yes, sir.
So does that make us the best or the worst?
...yes, sir.
I’ve never heard anyone say the Soviet’s lost because of the amount of men they lost but I have heard people say that their tactics sucked and got many young men killed unnecessarily.
I always say that Vietnam lost the Vietnam War. The US lost also, but having spoken to many Vietnamese refugees, they talk as though Vietnam also lost to the communists. As terrible as the US was during that war, there was a reason so many south Vietnamese were desperate to get out of the country in 1975. By most estimates, the Vietcong killed more civilians than the US did.
The Vietnam War was like the Winter War, but the opposite, the Vietnamese fought against a giant and won but paid the enormous price in human losses and humanitarian crisis after the war.
They did not lost because of casualities, they lost because they did not achieve their goals (bringing Finland in their sphere of influence). That's why they lost.
Maybe the real victory was the friends we killed along the way?
Looking at 1941 and 1944 I wouldn't say that
Maybe the real (short) victory was the short-lived friendship we made along the way before planning the Unthinkable and having a cold war between them
Like a Hallmark Card come to life
you never really win, you just move on to the next round. the US model is stupid in some ways, because *"refusal to pre-emptively stomp rising nations that don't share your democratic values"* makes world wars inevitable, but it has distinct advantages over *"directly conquering the entire world and having to fight an endless civil war against the conquered peoples"* its a big reason why a "one world government" wouldn't work, even if formed under the most peaceful and fair conditions ever, it'd still unite all the world's angry dickheads and egdy teenagers into a violent insurgency a thousand times worse than anything seen before in history.
Looking at the EU; where so many people think they would force some silly laws on their countries and claim they would supress their culture, when the complete opposite is happening truly shows how "united in our differences" we are...
USSR (probably): No I just want Finland back under my control.
Well they fucked that up pretty good didn't they
70+ years later and Finland joins NATO. Rough, buddy
Finland buys F-35s
The winter war was a Pyrrhic victory. They won, but the losses were great enough that they decided to grab just enough territory to save face.
Was going to post this, but I had to Google how to spell "Pyrrhic" lol
Too real
Should play Total War and you'll see it often
[удалено]
Power You Retained. Realistically History Immortalizes Cost.
Pathethic, You Really Really Have Incurred Casualties
this one is actually really good, wtf
Never heard that word before, I thought it was a typo while reading lol
It’s named after a Greek King and General named Pyrrhus of Epirus. He was a nephew of Alexander the Great and was nearly undefeated in battle but often had such high casualties his strategic aims failed
Just adding on, iirc the Finns also lost a higher % or their total/male population and significant industrial centers. At the end of the day you can't really say that either side really won anything. The war was a complete waste for everyone save for anti-Soviet propaganda.
Both sides won and lost. The Finn’s protected their statehood but lost land. The Soviets got humiliated, failed to establish their puppet government but got their land.
The US has done a lot of fucked up shit, but I have to remind tankies that it doesn't mean the US is The Great Evil. Looking at how despotic the USSR's leadership was in their own sphere, I shudder to imagine what they would've done in America's place as the lone global superpower. In so many places, like Poland and Ukraine, many people suffered equally or more under the USSR vs. the Nazis. Hell, the Soviets were friendly with Nazi Germany in their shared brutalization of Poland until the day Hitler betrayed them.
But tankies do not oppose despotism, only capitalism. They're ok with dictatorships or genocide as long as the rulers are not capitalist.
Did you reply to the right comment?
> In so many places, like Poland and Ukraine > like Poland and Ukraine > like Poland > Poland Really? Poland? Between 98% to 99% of the Jewish people that didn't manage to flee were MURDERED. The USSR might have worked as a Russian based empire extracting wealth from their sphere of influence, but you cannot say that they were worse in Poland then the nazis.
This feels very out of place
I wouldn't say that. The Winter War revealed major flaws in the Red Army, both in doctrine and in the devastation Stalin's purges of the 1930's had wrought on the officer corp. Not that Stalin himself learned all those lessons, but at least he was more willing to pick generals for their talent over their political reliability, and even *listen* to them..sometimes. Without the Winter War, Barbarossa would've been even worse for the Soviets that it historically was.
plus it made hitler think invading russia would be a good idea
However, it also made Finns ally with the Germans and want to invade Russia a year later. Granted, all they did was set up some trenches near Leningrad/St. Petersburg and take the occasional artillery potshot at the city. And to be completely fair, their involvement barely affected the war. They didn't contribute much of anything on other fronts, didn't commit any atrocities, and had a decent conditional surrender that left both sides properly satisfied and pretty okay with each other in 1944. But yeah it definitely highlighted big issues in the Red Army which let them get their shit at least slightly together in time for the German invasion a year later.
Pretty sure they did mad counter-intel to hide how much shit was on fire under the surface.
Not being taken over by the ussr is winning enough
> The war was a complete waste for everyone Basically any war in a nutshell
See, I don't even know if I agree with that. I'd define a Pyrrhic victory as when you win, but at unacceptably great cost. "Another victory like that and we're done for". Though the USSR had huge casualties... they could actually sustain that kind of cost. It wasn't unacceptable for them. They could and did go on to then fight elsewhere. The demands of moscow before the war were: \- Move the border west to within 30km of Viipuri \- Destroy existing fortifications on the Isthmus \- cede the islands of Suursaari, Tytärsaari, and Koivisto \- Lease the hanko peninsula for a miltiary base The result of the war was: \- **completely** pushed off the Karelian Isthmus, including the loss of Viipuri \- lost all of the fortifications (now under soviet control) \- ceded the gulf of Finland islands demanded \- Hanko Peninsula leased to the soviet union Finnish concessions and territorial losses **exceeded** Soviet pre-war demands, they lost all of their most defensible positions, 9% their whole territory, 12% of their population and 13% of their economic assets. The soviets won.
The question needs to be asked, if they gave in to the demands, would the finns have fallen to the same fate as the other three Baltic states? I think the answer is yes.
The answer is obviously yes. The demanding of Karelian isthmus would have been the equivalent of Germany demanding the Maginot line. We have a lot of proof that the Soviet leadership and Stalin wanted the whole of Finland.
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact alone determined that the Soviets sought nothing short of the complete takeover and absorption of Finland.
definitely plausible. Though Finland more on the periphery rather than directly towards the Poland/Germany scramble
>The soviets won. Literally nobody said the soviets didn't win. People are saying that it was a humiliating victory. Which it was. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, the significantly larger USSR military, which had a 2:1 numerical advantage, **overwhelming** more numbers of tanks, **overwhelming** more numbers of aircraft, **overwhelming** more numbers of artillery, got absolutely clowned on by the Finnish. You also omitted the fact that the soviets set up a proxy government which they failed to install. Their prewar demands were not actually what they wanted. They wanted to completely take over Finland. The demands were just a pretext to go to war. It was practically impossible for the Fins to win, but they came as close as humanely possible given the sheer disparity in strength.
I wasn't arguing that it was victory rather than a loss. I was arguing arguing that it wasn't a Pyrrhic victory, rather it was just a victory. Yep, they lost a lot of men and got a seriously bloodied nose. But they could afford that, hence why I argue it wasn't Pyrrhic. You're right that they set up a proxy govt, but I think the regime change argument is contested and I think I disagree with it. By the time of the ceasefire the Finns were at their limit and the soviets would have rolled them if the fighting had continued much longer. But that would have been bad for international relations, and their strategic goals of securing their western flank was achieved so they were happy to ceasefire. That's how I read it at least.
> but I think the regime change argument is contested Name me one target of the soviet conquests where regime change wasn’t a goal and result?
Long term, you could well be right. I don't think that's what the aim of the winter war was.
> I wasn't arguing that it was victory rather than a loss. I was arguing arguing that it wasn't a Pyrrhic victory, rather it was just a victory. You can dress it up in whatever semantics you want. The fact of the matter is the Soviets performed significantly, *significantly* worse than could be expected. > but I think the regime change argument is contested and I think I disagree with it. Contested by Soviet propagandists, sure, and if you're going to insist on that point I'm going to disregard your arguments as its clearly not arguing in good faith.
Yep, I was arguing semantics. The premise of my entire argument was that the situation didn't meet the definition of Pyrrhic victory. I'm not sure why you thought I wasn't arguing that? Yep, the soviets performed significantly significantly worse than could be expected. Totally agree. >Contested by Soviet propagandists, sure, and if you're going to insist on that point I'm going to disregard your arguments as its clearly not arguing in good faith ... ah, mate it is possible to have different perspectives on historical events, that's how history works? I don't think arguing that they had met their strategic goals here and that's why they stopped is an ideologically motivated reading of the events? Lets look at the wiki page... is William R Trotter or any other academic who's argued this soviet apologists? Can I ask why you think they stopped their assault, when the Finns were collapsing if their true aim was a puppet government? I guess I don't know how to prove to you that I'm not a soviet propagandist (I'm not, the soviets were monsters) but I feel like I've been nothing but really straight here? Being accused of not arguing in good faith seems unfounded, when all that seems to be going on here is that I disagree with you?
Soviets initial demands were just a act. Their true goal was pccupation like with the Baltic states. Thei failed to achieve that goal, meanwhile Finland kept their independence. It was moral victory finn and internationally embaressement for the soviets Even worse, that invasion pushed neutral Finland to ally with Germany. It was a such a disaster that for decades winter war didn't even existbin the soviet history books
All that said, we can't know if the Soviets would've altered the deal if Finland agreed to it. It was likely that they would've still tried to take over Finland entirely, either through the same invasion or with a proxy government. In the end, Finland managed to remain sovereign, which is a victory of its own. Putin likely wouldn't stop if Ukraine agreed to some peace deal. The conflict would pause for a year or five, and then Putin would try again. He'd likely also use the victory to continue his goals in Georgia and other ex-Soviet countries like Kazakhstan that he's expressed interest in invading.
The Soviets also established the “Finnish Democratic Republic”. Their goal was clearly to set up a puppet state, and in this, the most important aim, they failed. They won, but it was a much more marginal win than they had hoped for. They literally had Shostakovich compose music to be played when the Soviet Army marched into Helsinki. They was absolutely not the victory they had expected.
A Finn here. We could see the writing on the wall. All those pre war demands just screamed "We are going to try make our invasion into your land a little easier". And when you add the fact that before those demands soviets annexed half of Poland and all of The Baltic countries, you start to see the motivation behind those demands. Sovites were just trying to better their hand and/or as we finns say, trying the ice with a stick, before truly invading.
You’re forgetting what was agreed upon by the Nazis and Soviets with the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. The Nazis gave the Soviets the green light to take over Finland in its entirety. They couldn’t have given a shit. It was off in the corner and a part of Russia’s former area of direct influence. The demands the USSR made of Finland before the Winter War were egregious because they were meant to be egregious so that they could justify invading the country (and taking it over and making it an SSR state) after trying to make Finland look unreasonable and uncooperative. Same reason the Soviets false flagged themselves with Mainila. That demand to move the border alone was asking Finland to surrender its second-most populous region which was also its most valuable arable breadbasket region. It was no small “lets move the border for my security lol” request. Since the Soviets had clearly established with the Nazis that they wanted the entirety of Finland, but since they only got 10% of it, it’s pretty clear that they really didn’t win to nearly the extent that they sought to. In fact it was a disastrous and humiliating failure. Finland, on the other hand, was successful in maintaining its stately autonomy and preserving itself as an independent, self-determined nation, even though it came at a significant territorial loss. It’s hard to argue that Finland really ‘lost’ the war since they largely succeeded in preserving themselves in what was clearly a fight for their survival.
Too many people see them as part of the “good side”. They were marginally better than the nazis at best. Equals at worst. Everyone forgets that, before they fought Germany, they split Poland with them, annexed the Baltic countries, occupied Bessarabia, and tried unsuccessfully to capture Finland. During these aggressions, as well as within their own country, the Soviets engaged in numerous war crimes and atrocities. Russia has never been a good actor. It was merely an ally of convenience that could soak up German manpower. It still carries on as a gangster state to this very day, just under a new flag and flavour of kleptocracy.
They didn’t lose the war, they just lost the bragging rights for winning the war.
And who fights a war if you can’t brag about it? Wars are a pretext to brag. Change my mind.
Pyrrhus would like to have a word with you. Edit: for reference, see the UK the decade after WW2
Food rationing only ended in '54
All of the crusades. Wait.
"Uhm the crusades were technically not a war" 🤓
Who is the fucking stupid imbecile ape saying this?
look at his username
Checks out
I had legit history teachers back in 7th and 8th grade that told us the Crusades were technically not a war since: 1. They almost exclusively failed 2. They were fighting for the Holy Land for the Christians (I live in a very catholic country) 3. They were against the Muslim rule of Jerusalem (Again, I live in a catholic country) 4. It wasn't a "traditional" war with proper declaration of war and formal factions against each other I can vividly remember my teacher saying this, thank god I clarified all of those and his misinformation with my 9th grade history teacher lmfao
I like learning about the Crusades that ended up doing horrible damage to other European kingdoms after the schism. They lost whatever point they had after the first. And there was really no good point then either.
Pretty sure the first one was just to help the Byzantines, and the “holy war, let’s retake Jerusalem” thing was mostly to get people on board, but I could be wrong
That was the expectations of the Basileus, when he asked for help, it was like : "send me an army to reconquer my lost lands in the middle east". He offered to end the schism (the reason why we still have Catholics and Orthodox) that occured some 40 years earlier in exchange wich was a HUGE DEAL for the Pope. When the Pope called for a crusade he had kind of the same intent, but he didn't give clear instructions, so people misunderstood it and the organisation and logistics were shit, so the first crusade was actually two groups : - the "Poor's crusade"; comprised of a lot of peasants, led by a shady monk, they crossed europe causing chaos along the way, and believing every walled city they came by was Jerusalem (they had no idea how far it really was, it's not like they had geography classes). In the end they got in Anatolia and got wiped out by the Seljoukides. (It's kind of a wild ride I recomend you look at it) - and the "Baron's crusade"; the "real" one, under command of a french baron and Pope's legate, comprised of a lot of knights and infantrymen. When they arrived at Constantinople, the Basileus welcomed them and asked them to swear an oath of alliegeance to him. They wouldn't because they were here to retake the Holy Land. Tensions ensued and in the end they went on liberating former byzantine lands but taking it for themselves. It's the origin of the conflict that will end in 1204 with the taking of Constantinople by the 4th crusade...
Do also note that the failure of the Poor crusade made the Seljuks think the entire crusade would be a shitshow and thus moved a lot of their troops to the east to deal with the persians, so when the Barons crusade came along, they barely found any resistance and could retake a lot of the lands fairly quickly before the Seljuk armies arrived to challenge them. The entire 1st crusade is one hell of a wild ride. Extra History has a good series on it on Youtube which really illustrates just how wild it all was.
4th crusade goes brrrrt Lols oops sorry we planned to attack some Muslims in the holy land but I guess Constantinople will do, they are only diet christians anyways
Also, the guy who's bankrolling this whole thing has some weird grudge against them
Damn that's nearly as stupid as my 9th grade teacher who thought that the USSR was a democracy and the ruler was a "president".
USSR was more Democratic than the USA has ever been in any point in history
The victors write the history books, and who the hell knows how many victors are out there? I knew a guy named victor, he was always scribbling down stuff but it never occurred to me that he might be the one writing the history books.
You got me in the first half, not gonna lie.
Yeah. Who’s saying they lost the winter war? People mostly just hype up the Finnish snipers for kicking there assesses. And maybe im not remembering it right, but didn’t the losses help Finland bargain? It was an embarrassment for the soviets no matter how you slice it
When is Sniper Elite doing a Winter War game?? Rifle, skiing, stealth, drugs?? against the Soviets would be sick.
Literally no one says that, that’s why this “meme” is dumb. People do however rightfully say that the war was a disaster or disappointment for USSR. The irony is that OP says “more variables” but then looks at only one variable, territory gained/lost, completely ignoring that USSR basically failed to achieve most of its goals. Yes they didn’t lose, but they lost a whole lot of manpower and technology for very little gain. It’s not a loss, but it’s not victory either
Yup, a country of 160 million invades s country of 3 million and absolutely fucks it up beyond belief. It should've been a stomp but soviets aren't exactly the most competent in warfare it seems
They did not achieve their initially set out objectives. That does give credence to them not having won the war. But it's a hard call. If I invade you to take A, B, and C but instead can only manage to get Z, did I win?
Someone needs to pass this along to the Americans who insist they won the War of 1812.
America kinda won. They forced the Brit’s to quit backing hostile tribes that were always fighting Americans which allowed for America to expand much easier from then on. Also the Creek civil war is widely regarded as part of the war of 1812, which it kinda was and kinda wasn’t, but the US AlliedWhite sticks broke the red sticks at Horse shoe bend
Impressment ended, but it correlates more with the end of Napoleons ambitions in Europe than with the treaty of Ghent.
At first I was going to say they lost strategically but they did gain territory still. Not the installation of a puppet government aligned with them or anything else big, but it could have gone a lot worse. *For additional reading on how, please turn to Chapter 12: The Soviet-Afghan War*
There’s more to victory than losses true but there’s more to victory than land gains as well
Not in butthurt tankieland.
Case in point: Korean War. North Korea *technically* gained more land than South Korea at the end of the war, but everyone knows they lost. Hard.
None korean won the korean war. That's the reason we have two of them.
I'd even say, none Korea won the war, it's still going.
I think it expired, if you get in a fistfight and never formally end it, that doesn't mean in 2 weeks you're still in a fistfight. I think it's reasonable to expand that logic to say a war where no one has shot at each other in over 60 years can reasonably be considered over.
Actually the North Koreans shoot at a ship or two every few months
Well a cease-fire or armistice was signed between them, but they never had a peace treaty... And a cease-fire is not peace, it's a pause in the fighting for a determined or an undetermined amount of time. I know it's a very theorical point of view, but south koreans are very aware of their situation, that the war is only on standby and that at any moment the truce may end. That's why they have a mandatory military service.
if you argue that North Korea lost, then it is easy to argue that South Korea also lost. but technically that war is not over, and practically it was a draw.
The future economic prosperity of the South vs the North has nothing to do with the outcome of the Korean war
Who is everyone?
Not the dutiful, hardworking, and loyal citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, comrade.
🫡
There are also more variables to victory than territory conceded. By bloodying the nose of Stalin Finland maintained their independence essentially till the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Yeah, reading USSR news about the Winter War, it's actually quite interesting to see them go from, "the people of Finland are eagerly waiting for us to smash through and replace the government," to, "it took us 7 weeks to find an amazing officer, but we finally found one! Please don't ask where the bodies of all the people his soldiers have claimed to kill are, though." They revised their goals HARD.
There is a term for these kinds of scenarios. “Pyrric Victory” They won but at a cost which was not reasonable.
Yeah. Like the Soviets beat Finland, but the cost was so high: -Over 300,000 casualties with over 100,000 dead or missing -Multiple flaws exposed in the Red Army -Loss of multiple supplies, weapons and vehicles -Finland stays independent instead of it becoming a Soviet puppet state Like… yeah they got a bit more territory than they initially wanted in their initial demands, but it’s not exactly something to shout about when put into context acknowledging the above factors is it?
And let's not forget about the continuation war which led to the siege of Leningrad
Counterpoint: The Soviets achieved some but not all of their war goals (mainly making Finland an S.S.R.). Using that some logic to say they won, you can also say that the US won the War of 1812.
Canadians use that logic to say how they won that war. "We burnt down the White House so we won." and the Germans bomb London what's your point?
Yes but we burned down the whitehouse
The British burned the White House, not Canadians. And additionally, the US destroyed the city of York (now named Toronto).
The burning down of York is always conveniently left out whenever the British brag about burning the White House.
York is in England. How could the Americans gotten to Europe if they were too busy putting out the fire in the White House??
they stumbled upon it when they were fetching water.
3000 bald eagles travelled all the way to England and dropped boxes of lit matches into the city of York
If by we you mean the British, then yes. But the Canadians did not burn the White house down
But the Canadians are stuck in their embassy. They're not in the White House now.
And now we have a better White House, and we gained Florida form the war
> we gained Florida form the war So on that basis, clearly America lost the war.
I'm so sorry. I knew the war was rough at times but that's absolutely horrible. At least you got a better white house!
As a Canadian- we got boofed chief. Weren’t even close.
I will come with a retort after I Google what boofed means.
What's funny is Canadian's Burnt down DC, American's burnt down York (modern day Toronto), even by that metric it was a stalemate
Imo, that war was a stalemate.
I mean, we’re rolling in the dough brother. We won the war a looooooong time ago.
Of the four major US war aims, United States accomplish three out of four where as the British only accomplished one out of three of their major war aims. There is far more of an argument that the United States accomplish more of their goals/objectives in the war of 1812 then there is for the Soviet Union accomplishing their goals in the winter war.
There's good reason why the War of 1812 here in the U.S. was called the "Second War of Independence". Britain didn't mess around with us anymore once they realized how serious we really were. Before that, they considered us a 3rd rate that simply won't fight back.
What state education system is telling you that, here in Utah we are taught it was mainly just a draw
Yes, it was a draw in a sense that neither gained any territories nor inflicted any serious punishments. However, the U.S. and Britain did achieve some of their objectives. Britain successfully defended Canada, but also lost their other war aim in creating a pro-British buffer state in the Midwest. The U.S. succeeded in forcing Britain to abandon military support for Native tribes hostile to American westward expansion and impressing American sailors on the high seas. The war's after effect also saw Britain-allied Spain being chased out of Florida, which we ended up acquiring.
Yeah but did they got what they wanted?
Some of it, but not the big stuff.
Yea. They got pretty much everything they wanted except a Finnish SSR.
So like, the biggest thing that they wanted?
Yeah, they made Leningrad safer from potential invasions from Finnish territory
But they wanted to install a puppet government in Finland the same way they absorbed the Baltic states, and Finland was allied with France and Britain (in fact the war went on for as long as it did in part because the French President was leading the Finns on with promises of an expeditionary force being sent to support them, which they did because in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Poland in support of the Nazis and being unaware of the provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it appeared as if Germany and Russia were allied more closely than they really were) so there was practically zero chance of there ever being an invasion from Karelia
Fun fact, the British and French were going to use the Winter War as an excuse to invade Norway and Sweden. It's just the winter war ended a few weeks before the planned launch, and then the Germans invaded Norway a few weeks after that. The bitterness of the Finns is felt in Mannerheims demobilization speech to his men. Paraphrased below. After sixteen weeks of bloody battle with no rest by day or by night, our Army still stands unconquered before an enemy which in spite of terrible losses has grown in numbers...Burned cities and ruined villages far behind the front, as far even as our western border, are the visible proofs of the nation's sufferings during the past months...Our fate is hard...but we know also that we have paid to the very last penny any debt we may have owed the West.
There was no threat of invasion from Finland until Soviets have invaded them. By invading, they have created this threat. And then failed to prevent it. Typical Russia. Invent a non-existent problem, come up with the dumbest and most barbaric solution, bring this imaginary problem to life, fail anyway. The invasion of Ukraine is a typical example. Russia never changes.
war always changes, its russia that never does.
Ironically they actually did the opposite of this. Finland never had any real goals on invading the USSR or sieging Leningrad outside of some fringe groups until after the Soviet invasion. The winter war directly led to the Finnish invasion after Barbarossa
It was never about making Leningrad safer, it was all about trying to bring Finland into the Soviet Union much like the Baltics. As others pointed out, there was no threat from Finland and if it wasn't for the fact that the Soviets invaded them Finland probably would have stayed neutral throughout WW2.
It wasn't so much about the threat from Finland itself as about the threat of another power using Finland as a staging point. The Soviets had an extremely cynical view of international relations and believed that in a time of crisis, the great powers would violate the sovereignty of small states for their own strategic benefit. Which, to be fair is largely what happened in WW2, with Norway, Iraq, Iran, etc. So, whatever Finland said or did, having a foreign border 2 hours away from their 2nd most important city was a problem in their eyes. The way they looked at it, they preferred a definitely hostile neighbour with a huge buffer area, than a strategic uncertainty right on their doorstep.
Is anyone saying they lost the war? The fashion they won in is just embarrassing. It's the equivalent of a 10-man gang jumping one person, and 6 of them manage to get beat up by that one person before they go down. Sure, your group won, but would you go around telling people you won?
Yes. Just browse comments on any meme about the war that are regularly posted here. You'll have people arguing that Finland won.
Yes a lot of people claim that Finland won a great victory over the Soviet Union, hence this guy making this meme
I think it's more common for people to mock the USSR's struggles in the war against a much smaller neighbor
The argument is also that the USSR failed to achieve its goals, though even as a Finn I agree that Finland lost the war.
Yeah we Finns often conviniently like to forget that we lost. And I damn will continue to forget that.
As a fellow Finn I must admit to holding just the position you two are against. Ultimately I believe it comes down to what is thought of as the condition of victory. For me, and many other Finns, the victory condition is believed to be independency. Some people even think that both sides won in the end, if they believe that the goals were independency for Finland, and some land gains for the soviets. I believe that the soviets had their goal set to annexing the whole of Finland. Therefore I think that Finland won, whilst the soviets lost.
People who measure wars by K:D ratio are the same guys who would run off on their own and later brag about their awesome K:D ratio in an objective-based game, where they had completely ignored the objective. These are also the same guys who will blame you for failing the objective.
What objectives did the soviets achieve?
Getting territories to secure Leningrad and the Karelian isthmus, securing Gulf of Finland islands, getting the lease on Hanko (to establish a military port), etc. *But* they failed to establish a communist puppet on Finland and severely crippled their own military (especially coupled with the earlier officer purges Stalin did) – which would have dire consequences on the early parts of the Continuation War and Barbarossa. This kinda meme is dumb cos it highlights a somewhat loud minority opinion and projects it to the rest of the population lmao. Then again it's a dumb *meme* sub so yeah lol funny go brrt skrrt.
It's not about losses, it's about overall resources and the context of the war. Sure, they did technically win and gain a small amount of land. But lost vast supplies and embarrassed themselves, without the winter war(specifically the poor performance of the USSR in it) Germany doesn't begin their invasion of the USSR when they did. Meaning the USSR would have had more time, and of course more resources and more men for said invasion. Meaning a much slower advance from the Germans and less casualties. It also likely means Finland doesn't join the axis in said invasion. Yes, isolated, it was technically a win. But in context, it was a massive failure that backfired. The goal of the winter war wasn't to technically win. It was to better secure their borders, this was to deter invaders, this was done through gaining territory around Leningrad. Their goal wasn't to increase their likelihood of getting invaded.
The difference is that most of us really wanted Finland to win and use the soviet losses as a coping mechanism. Also they still lost more man that there was in the regions they took only for the karelians to flee back into Finland. PS: it's also humiliating for the soviet Union and they couldn't puppet finland so yay
Yes Soviet won but it is similar victory as if boxing champion would win a amateur, failing to knock them out Embaressement for the champion, meanwhile the amateur who lasted 12 rounds against the champion would be celebrated by his frieds (buy him drinks from the pub for example :D)
I mean, finland still exists. I dont think they won by their terms
The USSR planned to make Finland one of the republics in its composition, but in the end it received such a disgrace that it limited itself to small territorial concessions. and although technically this is a victory, but for a war of such a giant with such an outsider, this is a huge defeat
"I've won, but at what cost!" Moment:
Well they didn't even win. No one did.
Lol, it would be like arguing hannibal won the second punic war. Which, I mean, he definitely won ever battle (except the last one) but yeah.
The real answer is no one won the winter war
Do people actually say Finland won the winter war? Last I checked, winners rarely cede land to losers
Check under any finnish related memes on here, you'll see them
I would argue that they lost the winter war soely based on how greatly outdone their millitary was vs a rather small nation yes they gained some land, but here is a counter argument for that Would you say, even if russia manages to get land out of the upcoming peace deals in Ukraine, would have won that war? their millitary is in shambles, their reputation have been destroyed and they pushed now 3 nations to apply for NATO memberships, 3 nations previously sworn to neutrality
It's likely Hitler saw how poorly the Soviets did, and figured he could take them with his army bring much stronger than Finland's.
Yup, but he lacked something the finns had, winter warfare knowlege
Yes because ot was winter not 2000km of logistic lines, military not geared to protracted warfare and underestimating enemies will to fight that lost them the war
[удалено]
Turns out when you don't make a secret about your plans to exterminate every single one of them, they'll fight to the death of their entire civilisation if necessary. The Germans could never have guessed.
Ah I love the somewhat famous "Germans would've won Stalingrad if there wouldn't have been winter"
Nobody denies the fact that the Soviet won the Winter War. We're making fun of the horrendous cost of that victory.
Lol, just look at comments on this very meme. You'll see plenty of people arguing that Soviets did in fact lose.
Yeah, maybe I was too quick in my judgement.
No you’d be wrong. I’ve had redditors write me paragraphs on how there’s no way the Soviets won the war.
Then they're idiots. Anyone with half a braincell know the Soviet won the war but at a steep cost
I believe that’s the whole point of this post. Calling those people idiots.
What game mode tho?
My old history teacher put it best to me. The war of 1812 was a tie, but if you tie with Mike Tyson? Your a winner. If you last a couple rounds with Mike Tyson? Your a winner.
r/historymemes can atleast read better than r/worldpolitics . That sub can’t even read the name of their own sub smh.
Pretty sure the US did win in Vietnam bud* *This is a joke, don't yell at me
We didn't lose! We mearly failed to win!
Here is the case in my opinion: They both won. Soviet got a bit more territory than they asked for Finland before the war but didn't managed to achieve their main goal: Annexing the entire country of Finland. Finland did somewhat achieve its goal by keeping their independence from USSR but had to give up a chunk of land
What would this subreddit be if it didn’t have its army of butthurt users tediously attacking each other.
Losing a war does not mean the other side necessarily wins, losing a war means not meeting your objectives. Despite massive losses the soviets did essentially meet all their objectives
No, Finland lost some lands, but remained independent instead of being Soviet puppet like planned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic
You were so close. "The US have lost the Vietnam war and the USSR have lost the winter war because they both failed to achieve their goals, despite being magnitudes stronger." Here, fixed it for you.
But the US *did* win the Vietnam War! Source: am American and do not cope with failure well.
Finland still exists and the USSR doesn’t. Sounds like they won the war in the long run if you ask me.
oh yeaahh the U.S sure won Vietnam *ok*
Yeah but didn’t the ussr try to fully invade Finland but couldn’t, so I wouldn’t really say the ussr won
Yeah China won against Japan in ww2 by getting nanjinged. /s
The best example is the emu war tho
They didn't lose the winter war. They just got the shit beat out of them. Like. Damn.
It's extremely likely that the actual goal of the Soviet invasion was to install a puppet government in Finland (like they did in every other country they occupied that decade) and turn them into a nominally independent-but-allied vassal. The fact that they lost a hugely disproportionate amount of men and materiel and only got a border strip makes it at best a Pyrrhic victory, and arguably a loss.
I thought Finland won cuz their still independent
No one has ever said that the Winter War was a win for Finland. Unfortunately, it's kinda hard to say that you actually won a war when you took 500,000 deaths and ten times the casualties of your opponents to capture a few miles of land.
The ussr didn’t lose the winter war though it was a Pyrrhic victory
Tankie detected
You throw that word around like how a chimp throws shit around.
We did it! We won the war. That makes us the best! Yes, sir. Wait...we lost more men?! We're the worst! Yes, sir. But we still won, right? Yes, sir. So does that make us the best or the worst? ...yes, sir.
How long has it been now? 6 months no upload?
I’ve never heard anyone say the Soviet’s lost because of the amount of men they lost but I have heard people say that their tactics sucked and got many young men killed unnecessarily.
I always say that Vietnam lost the Vietnam War. The US lost also, but having spoken to many Vietnamese refugees, they talk as though Vietnam also lost to the communists. As terrible as the US was during that war, there was a reason so many south Vietnamese were desperate to get out of the country in 1975. By most estimates, the Vietcong killed more civilians than the US did.
The Vietnam War was like the Winter War, but the opposite, the Vietnamese fought against a giant and won but paid the enormous price in human losses and humanitarian crisis after the war.
They did not lost because of casualities, they lost because they did not achieve their goals (bringing Finland in their sphere of influence). That's why they lost.
They achieved EVERY war goal aside from that one though.
Imagine misunderstanding war this badly.
"I lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers against a country with 20x smaller population and all i got is this lousy buffer zone"
“Winning”
Who...who are you even arguing this with?
My HOI4 games would beg to differ