Why does the allied version of history ""conveniently"" ignore the fact that the bolshevist red army savagely attacked...

go fuck yourself you stupid piece of shit

The invasion of Xinjiang? The invasion of Poland?

>finland
>defenseless
Explain how they won the Winter War to me user.

So, we have the Soviets rushing to defend a colony of theirs established beforehand, and a war conducted before Stalin became the General Secretary.

Which of those apply again?

why are polsters so dumb

It wasn't savage and Finland wasn't defenceless.

Finland in WW2 was a Nazi sympathizer directly abetting the fascist cause. They refused to cooperate with the USSR, so the USSR did what they had to.

>we have the Soviets rushing to defend a colony of theirs established beforehand
>blatant invasion of the Republic of China

>Xinjiang
>Ever Russian

>September 1939
>Before Stalin took office

Чтo

/pol/ is a board of peace!

Im from there and dont subscribe to the nazi meme history bullshit though.

AYYY REVISIONIST HISTORY LMAO

>Xinjiang
>Ever Russian

Sheng Shicai was a home grown Chinese warlord who had accepted de facto vasselage of the USSR. The KMT tried to stamp out another independent warlord, he ran crying to his Soviet patrons for help.

>September 1939
>Before Stalin took office

You do have a point there, I assumed you meant the Russo-Polish war in the early 20s. Stupid of me, really, but I guess Finland becomes #2. Still, they're both extensions of the areas assigned to Stalin in the MR pact, so the ultimate point of how the "Bolshevist menace wanted to subjugate Europe and the world afterwards" has an awful lot to go before being even close to demonstrated.

>Sheng Shicai was a home grown Chinese warlord who had accepted de facto vasselage of the USSR. The KMT tried to stamp out another independent warlord, he ran crying to his Soviet patrons for help
This is quite literally equivalent to calling the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a defensive war. Neither were, but you retards will make it so regardless. This doesn't even take into account the reality that the USSR instigated the Sino-Soviet conflicts of the period as well as the Soviet-Japanese conflicts by continually violating established borders.

>so the ultimate point of how the "Bolshevist menace wanted to subjugate Europe and the world afterwards" has an awful lot to go before being even close to demonstrated
Besides the words of Lenin, the actions of Lenin, and the implicit actions of Stalin to either annex or install puppet governments anywhere he could? Seriously? You people are worse than the polacks.

And the occupation of Bessarabia

I'm more annoyed by the fact people (especially Russians) ignore the fact the USSR also attacked Poland + a bunch of other countries at the same time Germany did it and pretend that the Soviets entered the war in 1941.

>This is quite literally equivalent to calling the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a defensive war. Neither were, but you retards will make it so regardless. This doesn't even take into account the reality that the USSR instigated the Sino-Soviet conflicts of the period as well as the Soviet-Japanese conflicts by continually violating established borders.

No, not really. The Soviets were behind the Saur revolution in the first place which resulted in the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan taking power. Sheng Shicai on the other hand was put into the Soviet pocket after taking their help in the Kumul revolt, and I've never heard anyone attribute that nor the general chaos going on in China at the time to the USSR.

>Besides the words of Lenin, the actions of Lenin, and the implicit actions of Stalin to either annex or install puppet governments anywhere he could? Seriously? You people are worse than the polacks.

Lenin had been dead for decades. His policies were hardly followed by Stalin. Stalin certianly did not annex or install puppet governments everywhere he could. Look at how he pulled out of Iran and Greece post 1945.

I'm not saying he was a saint, he was a brutal, repressive dictator. And he did gobble up a good slice off his western border the first "safe" chance he got. But first and foremost, he was risk averse political opportunist. He was not about to embark on some millinarian idealistic world conquest crusade. That was more Trostsky's line.

Bessarabia was in 1940, after the Winter War.

>USSR
>truly part of the allies
only retarded russiaboos and commie kids support the USSR in WW2.

I think they were going to but then agreed that if Finland switched sides at the last second they could remain free. Hence the Lapland War.

I heard a lot about Finland's (first) battles with the Soviets, and of course her native sniper still holds the high score.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Britain was so piss scared of Germany now ruling the European Continent that they'll take any help they can get, whether it's in the form of lend lease surplus rifles from the US or having the titanic Red Army being the world's largest bullet shield.

You can disagree the Russians sure, but you'd be stupid to refuse their help when you both have a priority interest in defeating the Wehrmacht.

Hitler was a dumb fuck with PTSD, you have to be delusionnal to expect both side of the globe to do nothing when you try to re-create the germano territory of mid ww1. Swear to god this board.

Their first battles with the Soviets were in 1920's

>was attacked
>lost territory in the peace treaty
This is winning how?
t. Finn

From what i remember Britain had some stuff up in lapland they wanted to keep and warned Stalin at the end of ww2 not to take Finland. Both sides were pretty much tired of war and afraid of pissing each other off so the soviets didnt take Finland.

Why do Hitlerboos conveniently ignore that was part of German-Soviet agreement?

we just don't care about Finland

>poor defenseless Finland without prior provocation

There was an ultimatum.

>In fall 1939 the problem of Finland arose. We made contact with Helsinki to come to an agreement. The question we raised was that in the event of war it was necessary to protect Leningrad, which was within range of artillery fire from the Finnish border. A bombardment of Leningrad could be carried out directly from the territory of Finland. The Finnish government was then pursuing a hostile policy toward the USSR and was demonstratively flirting with Hitler Germany. Mannerheim, a former tsarist general, was the commander in chief of the army in Finland. He took a very unfriendly attitude toward the Soviet Union. Finland really did represent a threat for us, but not in and of itself. Its territory could be used against us by enemy forces from more powerful countries. That is why the desire of the Soviet government to ensure its security in the northwest was of such great importance.

>The overall outcome was that the Finns refused to accept our conditions. After that the decision was made to achieve the same thing by means of war.

-Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev

Molotov-Ribbentrop happened, you historically illiterate faggot. And each step was taken to hold the advance of the third reich. East Poland was occupied to have a tampon zone between Germany and the rest of the soviet union, as well as to stop Germany from occupying the entirety of Poland. Romania and Hungary were occupied to cover the southern flank, as both were German allies up until that point (so much for Hitler upholding europe, what with betraying both of those countries to the soviets to secure a treaty and all)
The baltics were taken because they contained x16 the amount of coal of the entirety of the soviet union, which was a needed boost against the advancing barbarian hordes. Karelia was taken to extend the border between Leningrad and Finland, as Finland was sympathetic to the nazi regime. And even prior to this, the soviets asked for military basing rights along Karelia. Poland and the UK were also asked much earlier to form an alliance against Germany by the USSR, but they both refused. So 2/4 soviet assults could have been avoided if they cooperated against the third reich, and even with that it was much different than German conquest. Hitler sold his own skin.

>finland exists and isn't automatically sucking russian dick
> suka blyad idi nahui
> chimp out in "self defense"
Soviet apologists should be nuked

Churchill had to be talked out of converting to Islam by his sister

Seems like pretty straightforward strategy to me.

they also invaded POLAND aka Britain's "we will help if you are attacked, swear on me mum"

>t. stormcuck

Natsoc here
He's not wrong

Barbarossa wasn't a defensive action
They had a non aggression pact you fucking retard

Not really. He was fascinated mostly by the Bedouin tribes and the Ottomans in general, but had a distinctly noblistic interpretation of Islam, and was harshly critical of its less than noble aspects.
He was also largely ignorant of its more basic and true to life aspects.

He wanted to be Islamic in the same fashion a modern feminist wants to be Islamic. He wanted the fashion and culture clash of something so exotic but only wanted it on a skin deep level.

"we will help you if GERMANY attacks you"

FTFY

>Why does the allied version of history ""conveniently"" ignore the fact that the bolshevist red army savagely attacked poor defenseless Finland without prior provocation in 1939?
it doesn't

next

Roosevelt was admittedly pretty naive in his dealings with Stalin, but once the Soviets starting making aggressive moves, everybody recognized the mistake pretty quickly.

FDR was a fucking half dead retard and got cucked by Stalin at Yalta. Thankfully he died and Truman was able to prevent Stalin from getting even more shit at Potsdam

>implying that Third Reich and Soviet Union didn't started WW2 in 39 as aggressors and remained still