soviet policy during WW2 timeperiod

[Czert]

well, this will be continiuning of this thread, so feel free to look.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...maybe-not-so-weak.1021268/page-4#post-23306897

Once again, you didn't stop to think. Without M-R, SU has a war with Germany in 1939, while it is fighting Japan - Khalhin-Gol was at the EXACT same time of the signing. With M-R, SU has another 18 months of peace to prepare for war.
If SU didn't absorb the Baltic states, they would have been used by Germany as a springboard to position Wehrmacht even farther east, just like Finland.
I already stated the reason for Winter War. I can reiterate - SU was trying to move the border away from Leningrad, which at the time housed almost 1/3 of SU defense industry. Negotiations failed, hence war was started.
Accurate info on German attack... Germans moved the date for the attack a few times. They spread disinformation, and soviet intelligence agencies were reporting DOZENS of dates. One of them was the correct one. It is easy to see it in HINDSIGHT, but use your head, and not propaganda. Do you know the 6 numbers for the next multi-million dollar lottery? All the numbers that can come up are well-published.
Germany was going to attack Poland with or without M-R. The date for the attack was set before the agreement was reached.

ok, so lets step by step. Have you anything to back up your claim that without m-r pack su will be atacked by germany in 39 ? other than your whisfull (or justificating) thinking ? just look at history, it taken for germany a long time to recoup from loses from polish campaign, before they atacked france, and by all posible measures, france was easier target than su.
and what with posible german atack have to do at all khalin gol battle (which soviets won btw) ? it was on realy fr away side of su, and soviets here used only small force here, biggest part was still at europe. and forces used there were not onlyest combat usable, so thier bussynes (from bussy) can be used as excuse for m-r pact.
for baltick states used as springboard like finland...well, do you know that finns allowed german units entry after winter war and were strongly oposing it before it ?
yes, you stated reasons for winter war...which are exactly solid as german reason to invade poland (gliwitz incident).
to make moving of borders justificable YOU have to PROVE that finland was theat to leningrad/su, no just say it. othervise germany and poland case apply.
and for that negotations, well, they were more like backmailing than negotiating. what soviets offered as compenzation to fins for lost territory ?
yes, germans moved few times time of invasion,same as they did in case of poland or other states, but that dont justify simply labeling all reported incorect dates as just nazi propaganda. it just nicely show you have absolutely no idea about how spying works. because all reports are treated about reliability of source of that info,ranging from "random guy without any history to confrim his reliability of info" up to "planted trained spys which report only true reports to thier best knowlenge"
and one of most reliable and best soviets spy netwrork in germany, red capelle, reported correct date.
not to mention that as spy manager you allways compare info from many independent sources to verify information, if it is posible, and as your belowed hindsight confrimed, that soviets archived prooved that most reports on planed german attack was about correct date, and not about previosuly canceled or totaly wrong ones.
and again, do you haave anything to back up your claim about that germans have set date to atack poland before m-r pact ?

Finns were talking to Japanese during the undeclared war in Mongolia, for example.
Ever heard of Greater Finland idea? Finnish government was a big fan. Good enough reason to attack SU - as long as someone else did the heavy lifting, like Germany or Japan, or UK/France.

any link to that negotatition between fins and japs ?
and actualy yes, i heard about greater finland idea before, and now, same as before i fail to see existence of that idea as reason for war, from booth sides. from finish side to invade su (for starting making planes, you need support from military and from publick to actuale wage that war , popularity of it in certain circles dont change that), and from side to invade because of it existence.
how did you liked if today us nuked whole russia only because some russian politicns like idea of adding part of ukraine (novorossyia) to russia ?
and for your heavy lifting idea, well, here comes even betetr part, can you prove not only that fins actualy did these talks with anyone fra, uk, ger, japs, martians..anyone - and as most important bonus can you PROVE that soviets of that time knowed about them to justify invasion ?
if you fail in any part of it, you will jsut prove that soviet invasion of finland was unjustifable.

 

[Opanashc]

1. You said, that no M-R pact = war. I just followed.
2. Khalhin-Gol had a LOT to do with it. It was small, compared to what was going on elsewhere, but M-R was the reason Japan cut their losses and didn't start anything bigger, because now SU could focus on them. Two-front war is worse then a one-front one, and M-R allowed SU to avoid precisely that.
3. We are entering the what-if scenarios now, so its opinion vs opinion.
4. Finnish incursions into SU in 1918 and 1920 to conquer territory are proof enough for me.
5. Your arguments demonstrate, that YOU have 0 clue how spying and disinformation works. You are relying on hindsight right now. Red Capelle gave dates varying from April to "sometime in August", as did others. You and those who work in archives are neatly ignoring the huge amount of other dates, to fit your needs.
6. Situations then and now can hardly be compared, due to MAD doctrine.
7. In politics and safety, you don't prove they will - you prove they can. Different standard.
8. I don't need to prove, that Winter Was was unjustifiable. Finnish behavior in occupied territories proves my point a lot better. I don't have some relatives, because Finnish soldiers came into the village and bayoneted all men ages 10 to 60 for no reason whatsoever. So don't try to bullshit me, its a sore point.

 

[Fanstar1]

1. You said, that no M-R pact = war. I just followed.
2. Khalhin-Gol had a LOT to do with it. It was small, compared to what was going on elsewhere, but M-R was the reason Japan cut their losses and didn't start anything bigger, because now SU could focus on them. Two-front war is worse then a one-front one, and M-R allowed SU to avoid precisely that.
3. We are entering the what-if scenarios now, so its opinion vs opinion.
4. Finnish incursions into SU in 1918 and 1920 to conquer territory are proof enough for me.
5. Your arguments demonstrate, that YOU have 0 clue how spying and disinformation works. You are relying on hindsight right now. Red Capelle gave dates varying from April to "sometime in August", as did others. You and those who work in archives are neatly ignoring the huge amount of other dates, to fit your needs.
6. Situations then and now can hardly be compared, due to MAD doctrine.
7. In politics and safety, you don't prove they will - you prove they can. Different standard.
8. I don't need to prove, that Winter Was was unjustifiable. Finnish behavior in occupied territories proves my point a lot better. I don't have some relatives, because Finnish soldiers came into the village and bayoneted all men ages 10 to 60 for no reason whatsoever. So don't try to bullshit me, its a sore point.

8. what do you mean? Winter war was Soviet invasion with the flimsiest of excuses (finn border too close to Leningrad), continuation war happened after USSR bombed and shelled NEUTRAL Finland, forcing Finland back into war.

 

[Opanashc]

8. what do you mean? Winter war was Soviet invasion with the flimsiest of excuses (finn border too close to Leningrad), continuation war happened after USSR bombed and shelled NEUTRAL Finland, forcing Finland back into war.

Neutral Finland? German bombers already used Finnish airfields to bomb SU, Finns already started to mine SU waters. That's called undeclared war, not neutral. Why would SU add to its enemies like that, when its leadership already planned a large retreat? Or do you honestly think industrial evacuation was not planned?

 

[Fanstar1]

Neutral Finland? German bombers already used Finnish airfields to bomb SU, Finns already started to mine SU waters. That's called undeclared war, not neutral. Why would SU add to its enemies like that, when its leadership already planned a large retreat? Or do you honestly think industrial evacuation was not planned?

source? also soviets started attacking finland hours after Barbarossa began, AFTER finland declared neutrality. Also Soviets wanted to annex finland so it wasn't suprising they tried everything to avoid destruction.

 

[Opanashc]

source? also soviets started attacking finland hours after Barbarossa began, AFTER finland declared neutrality. Also Soviets wanted to annex finland so it wasn't suprising they tried everything to avoid destruction.

Lets see...
21 June, Finland violated the 1940 treaty with USSR, by occupying demilitarized Aland Islands. It was also a violation of 1921 Geneva convention.
21 June, German mine-layers left Finnish ports and started creating a minefield across Finnish gulf, to blockade the Soviet Baltic fleet. If Finland was neutral, they should have been interned, since some were there since 14 June and international law of the time allowed no more than 3 days for such "visits".
21 June, three Finnish submarines deployed mines off the coast of Estonian SSR.
22 June Finland deployed 16 saboteurs by plane, to blow up Baltic-White sea canal, unsuccessfully.
23 June, Molotov talked to Finnish ambassador in Moscow, demanding clarification of Finnish position. Finns would not explain their actions.
25 June, Soviet air force attacked Finnish air bases.
So who again started first in this instance?

 

[Fanstar1]

Lets see...
21 June, Finland violated the 1940 treaty with USSR, by occupying demilitarized Aland Islands. It was also a violation of 1921 Geneva convention.
21 June, German mine-layers left Finnish ports and started creating a minefield across Finnish gulf, to blockade the Soviet Baltic fleet. If Finland was neutral, they should have been interned, since some were there since 14 June and international law of the time allowed no more than 3 days for such "visits".
21 June, three Finnish submarines deployed mines off the coast of Estonian SSR.
22 June Finland deployed 16 saboteurs by plane, to blow up Baltic-White sea canal, unsuccessfully.
23 June, Molotov talked to Finnish ambassador in Moscow, demanding clarification of Finnish position. Finns would not explain their actions.
25 June, Soviet air force attacked Finnish air bases.
So who again started first in this instance?

Finland had an alliance with Germany (formed only because of Winter War), deploying submarines I don't see how that is an act of war, first one maybe, but that isn't quite attacking soviets. 4th and 5th ones, sources? sixth one, that coincided with soviet shelling from the base west of Helsinki they leased after winter war.

 

[Fanstar1]

Neutral Finland? German bombers already used Finnish airfields to bomb SU, Finns already started to mine SU waters. That's called undeclared war, not neutral. Why would SU add to its enemies like that, when its leadership already planned a large retreat? Or do you honestly think industrial evacuation was not planned?

why did they immediately counterattack (or tried to) hours after Barbarossa started along with attacking Finland?

 

[Opanashc]

Finland had an alliance with Germany (formed only because of Winter War), deploying submarines I don't see how that is an act of war, first one maybe, but that isn't quite attacking soviets. 4th and 5th ones, sources? sixth one, that coincided with soviet shelling from the base west of Helsinki they leased after winter war.

Do you not know English? Submarines deployed MINES in SOVIET WATERS. That's like me coming to your house and booby trapping the back door.

why did they immediately counterattack (or tried to) hours after Barbarossa started along with attacking Finland?

Counterattacked where? 6-7 bombers (as according to wiki)? Considering, that German planes were using Finnish airfields on their way back from bombing runs to refuel, it is to be expected. If someone uses your neighbor's house to shoot at you with neighbor's consent, said neighbor cannot complain, that you shoot back at his house.

 

[Fanstar1]

Do you not know English? Submarines deployed MINES in SOVIET WATERS. That's like me coming to your house and booby trapping the back door.

Counterattacked where? 6-7 bombers (as according to wiki)? Considering, that German planes were using Finnish airfields on their way back from bombing runs to refuel, it is to be expected. If someone uses your neighbor's house to shoot at you with neighbor's consent, said neighbor cannot complain, that you shoot back at his house.

counterattack on the ground, but it failed massively (early Barbarossa was terrible for soviets). Also, after winter of 1941, Fins refused to assist in siege of Leningrad, nor take the Murmansk railway.

 

[Fanstar1]

Also you said winter war, not continuation war on your first comment, of which winter war was just blatant Soviet Invasion. Continuation, combination of provocations and soviets wanting to annex finland.

 

[Opanashc]

counterattack on the ground, but it failed massively (early Barbarossa was terrible for soviets). Also, after winter of 1941, Fins refused to assist in siege of Leningrad, nor take the Murmansk railway.

Never heard of massive ground attack on Finland in June 41... Air attack - sure. Ground - no. Which day was it, location of it?

Also you said winter war, not continuation war on your first comment, of which winter war was just blatant Soviet Invasion. Continuation, combination of provocations and soviets wanting to annex finland.

You started the talk about continuation war.

8. what do you mean? Winter war was Soviet invasion with the flimsiest of excuses (finn border too close to Leningrad), continuation war happened after USSR bombed and shelled NEUTRAL Finland, forcing Finland back into war.

Finns were offered twice the acreage for moving the border near Leningrad. They flatly refused. Then one of the incidents happened (hundreds of them during interwar years along all borders of SU), and it was used as pretext to war.

 

[Fanstar1]

Never heard of massive ground attack on Finland in June 41... Air attack - sure. Ground - no. Which day was it, location of it?

You started the talk about continuation war.

Finns were offered twice the acreage for moving the border near Leningrad. They flatly refused. Then one of the incidents happened (hundreds of them during interwar years along all borders of SU), and it was used as pretext to war.

when I said counterattack, I was talking about Barbarossa, not finland.

 

[Czert]

1. You said, that no M-R pact = war. I just followed.
2. Khalhin-Gol had a LOT to do with it. It was small, compared to what was going on elsewhere, but M-R was the reason Japan cut their losses and didn't start anything bigger, because now SU could focus on them. Two-front war is worse then a one-front one, and M-R allowed SU to avoid precisely that.
3. We are entering the what-if scenarios now, so its opinion vs opinion.
4. Finnish incursions into SU in 1918 and 1920 to conquer territory are proof enough for me.
5. Your arguments demonstrate, that YOU have 0 clue how spying and disinformation works. You are relying on hindsight right now. Red Capelle gave dates varying from April to "sometime in August", as did others. You and those who work in archives are neatly ignoring the huge amount of other dates, to fit your needs.
6. Situations then and now can hardly be compared, due to MAD doctrine.
7. In politics and safety, you don't prove they will - you prove they can. Different standard.
8. I don't need to prove, that Winter Was was unjustifiable. Finnish behavior in occupied territories proves my point a lot better. I don't have some relatives, because Finnish soldiers came into the village and bayoneted all men ages 10 to 60 for no reason whatsoever. So don't try to bullshit me, its a sore point.

1.no, i actualy sain no M-r pack, NO war at all.
2. well, when su wanted to have secured western borders, then it should sign non agresion paack with POLAND, which was existing on thier western borders at time of halin gol battle. germany dont have borders at all, so it maken no sense to sign na pact at all.and if you look at that that part of partioning of poland, then it is creal it was pack of agresion, not NA at all.
and if soviets so feared of posible german conquer of poland, well, it was sure that poles dont colapse overnigigt, so they will have at minimum time tto mobilize, and if tey did played cards orectly, they should make aliance between su and poland aginst germans.
3. well, it is not exactly what if sceario, it is just looking at realistic existing options. iif want to use that "what if" opticks, then everthing what didnt hapaned is what if scenario. i did have for meal potatoes and pork. period. yeah, i considered otehrs options too, but nnow it is what if scenario.
4. which incursion you have in mind exactly ? post link. and if they were so agresive, why they stoped after 1920 ?
4b - using your logic, then soviets suport of revolutions in europe in 20s was proof that soviet empire was evil one and must be destroyed by all means necesary.
5. ok, lets just focus on red capelle. was it reliable or not ? yes, it did posted different dates. what actions did soviets taken based on thier dates ? booth wrong and correct one. and what exact others things/dates we ingore ? did you mised that part that i writen that germans changed dates, so these originaly correct dates in end ended as false dates for soviets.
6. mad doctrine just make sure that no hot war occur, but dont make situation to much different than then. and to pick you your idea, to make thinkg more like back then, then lets asume that russians dont have nukes at all,and smaller arrmy, so that they are way weaker , so situation is way more closer that it was back then. so given this what if scenario, do you thinink that us will have right to nuke whole russia based on options of few politicks ? to do exactly what soviets did to finns ?
7. what you meaned by this ? well, in politicks, you dont have to prove anything at all, and can lie all time, but fr safety, here are totaly different standrds. you have to prove that chance off bad thing happening is big enough to jjustify cost of precaution. to put you in picture, it is commonly acept to create campfire in stone circle as fire precaution, together with other things, but you will have realy hard time to justify buing of fire exhaustinioner on concerte lot, because someone here is making campfire.
8. well, you got me totaly wrong, you have to prove that winter war was JUSTIFIABLE BY SOVIETS, so far you totaly failed to prove that. you failed to provide anything to back up that they were theat to leningrad, other parts of soviet land. or they ploted with other states against soviets.
and do not get closed this tread, so to not dig up more on your relatives fates, im sorry for that, but honestly, do you realy think that soviet soldiers acted better on finnish territory ?
and to be totaly safe from these things to haapen, is to n ot start any war at all, which just underline my point - you do realy have to realy good reason to wage war on, not just because there is snowflake chance in hell that situation X happen.
and do you realy think that fins will join war in 41 if there will be no winter war ? what reason for it they will have ? again, in 41 they mainly reclaimed lost territories, and thier advanc more was limited, actualy they didn even conqured all teritories of greater finland.

 

[Czert]

Lets see...
21 June, Finland violated the 1940 treaty with USSR, by occupying demilitarized Aland Islands. It was also a violation of 1921 Geneva convention.
21 June, German mine-layers left Finnish ports and started creating a minefield across Finnish gulf, to blockade the Soviet Baltic fleet. If Finland was neutral, they should have been interned, since some were there since 14 June and international law of the time allowed no more than 3 days for such "visits".
21 June, three Finnish submarines deployed mines off the coast of Estonian SSR.
22 June Finland deployed 16 saboteurs by plane, to blow up Baltic-White sea canal, unsuccessfully.
23 June, Molotov talked to Finnish ambassador in Moscow, demanding clarification of Finnish position. Finns would not explain their actions.
25 June, Soviet air force attacked Finnish air bases.
So who again started first in this instance?

wow, im impresed , but it is realy strange, you nicely posted dates and action of hostile finns actions before starting of continiation war, but miserably failed to post any dates or hostile actions by finns before winter war.

 

[Czert]

Do you not know English? Submarines deployed MINES in SOVIET WATERS. That's like me coming to your house and booby trapping the back door.
.

surely it is hostile action, but hardy justification for land invasion and airstikes. justified actions will be diplomatic protests agains minning AND minning of finnish waters.

 

[Czert]

Finns were offered twice the acreage for moving the border near Leningrad. They flatly refused. Then one of the incidents happened (hundreds of them during interwar years along all borders of SU), and it was used as pretext to war.

well, not everthing is about size, it is about value too. no one will exchange land in middle of las vegas to twice size of it of desert outside of it.
and can you post any example of hunderts of incidents in intwerwar period ?

 

[Anatur]

Soviet policy during WW2 can simply be called Stalin's policy,since he was the only one who got to decide on the matter.

I will lay out what i feel happened of relevance during that period and Stalin's motivations.

In Europe:

1.Rise of fascism.
Stalin didnt see fascism as a serious issue to begin with,after all having some Italians and Germans feeling patriotic wasnt exactly a threat to him.
But when things started heating up he decided to take action to try and contain them.
This was most clear during the Spanish Civil War where Stalin provided a lot of help to the Republicans while the French and British happily ignored the whole affair.

2.Stalin offered the French an anti-German alliance which they declined.
Following this Stalin decided that if he couldnt expect help fighting a war he may as well get help not fighting one,so he made an agreement with Hitler,the deal seemed good enough to Stalin,just grab most of East Europe while the Germans and Allies butcher each other in a rerun of WW1.

3.The Germans wreck everyone.
At this point Stalin started feeling a little uneasy,his idea of the imperialists bleeding each other white didnt work out the way he,or anyone else for that matter,expected.
As such Stalin is now in full appeasement mode towards Adolf hoping to consolidate the new gains and equip the Red Army with newer toys while Germany finishes off Britain.
Surely attacking the USSR while fighting the largest empire on earth would be madness,right?

4.Germany attacks the USSR.
At this point Stalin is probably given up on trying to roleplay Nostradamus,only thing really left is to fight this existential war to the end,and afterwards every nation that helped Germany,or was to weak to stop it,will simply have to be put under Soviet "protection" to ensure that such a disaster is never again experienced by Russia.

In Asia:

1.Before Japanese invasion.
Stalin was content to meddle a bit in Western China and keep an eye on the Japanese,but for the most part he showed little care for the place,after all there really wasnt anything of special worth there to begin with,apart from a fragmented China in the process of murdering itself.

2.Japanese invasion.
Since Japan was rampaging through China the USSR had 2 options.
1.It could grab some bits of China that were worth nothing.
2.Prop up China to bleed the Japanese and allow the USSR to remain secure in the Far East.
Like in the Spanish Civil War,here once again Stalin was the only one willing to provide real support to the victims of the soon-to-be Axis,if for no other reason than not want to have to deal with anyone hostile empire's near him.

3.Japan goes crazy and attacks everyone.
At this point Stalin had already fought off the Japanese incursions into Soviet territory and was continuing to help the Chinese,with Japan now tied up in China and the entire Pacific there was little risk of the Soviet Far East being threatened,but given the Japanese were now clearly insane a sizable number of Red Army formations was kept in the Far East,even during WW2 in Europe,these formations provided some manpower to later European operations but on the whole they remained a considerable force that could have answered any half-hearted effort Japan could have made against the USSR,seeing as the bulk of the Japanese manpower was tied down across Asia.

4.Germany is gone.
Now Stalin figures that he can do some proper land grabbing in the East seeing as the US is still advancing on Japan at a snails pace and China doesnt seem to be getting its act together anytime soon.
The Red Army,fresh from its war with the Wehrmacht,smashed the Japanese with relative ease,at which point the Americans panic and drop some nukes on Japan to intimidate the USSR,while accepting the Japanese surrender condition of maintaining the Emperor,the same condition Japan was offering before the nukes dropped.
Japan at this point knew it was doomed even without the nukes seeing as the USSR had in one strike removed their entire empire from them.

5.Japan has surrendered.
Now that Japan is no longer a threat,and the US is already demonstrating some landgrabby tendencies in Korea Stalin feels he can make sure there is no threat of a pro-American Far East.
To this end Stalin simply gives help to the Chinese communists who manage to rally most of China behind them and expel the KMT from the mainland.

After this is all said and done the only thing left for Stalin was to consolidate his grip on his new acquisitions,troll the capitalists in places like Berlin and then later lend some token support in various places like Korea to ensure he could never end up in the situation he was in in 1941.

 

[Opanashc]

when I said counterattack, I was talking about Barbarossa, not finland.

Well, you did not specify, so forgive me for missing the wild turn you made.

wow, im impresed , but it is realy strange, you nicely posted dates and action of hostile finns actions before starting of continiation war, but miserably failed to post any dates or hostile actions by finns before winter war.

That's because Fanstar1 went on a tangent with continuation war. If you read the entire discussion, you would have noticed.

well, not everthing is about size, it is about value too. no one will exchange land in middle of las vegas to twice size of it of desert outside of it.
and can you post any example of hunderts of incidents in intwerwar period ?

Land wasn't exactly prime estate in both cases, and SU was willing to pay, provide trade incentives, etc.
Incidents were many - shots fired at border guards doing their rounds by Finns, Poles, Japanese, support of anti-soviet terror groups by Poles. Hell, first Finnish prime minister declared "Any enemy of Russia must be always a friend of Finland".

 

[Opanashc]

1.no, i actualy sain no M-r pack, NO war at all.

No Anchlus, no Munich Conference, no stalling by west during alliance talks in summer of 1939 = no war at all. SU got tired of betrayals by colonial powers, and decided on a different strategy.

2. well, when su wanted to have secured western borders, then it should sign non agresion paack with POLAND, which was existing on thier western borders at time of halin gol battle. germany dont have borders at all, so it maken no sense to sign na pact at all.and if you look at that that part of partioning of poland, then it is creal it was pack of agresion, not NA at all.
and if soviets so feared of posible german conquer of poland, well, it was sure that poles dont colapse overnigigt, so they will have at minimum time tto mobilize, and if tey did played cards orectly, they should make aliance between su and poland aginst germans.

How naive can you be? Poland, at that point, was no longer a threat, but Germany was. Poland flatly refused an alliance with SU - "better death than dishonor". SU stopped acting in interests of everyone else, and started acting in its self-interests. THAT'S what you cannot forgive.

4. which incursion you have in mind exactly ? post link. and if they were so agresive, why they stoped after 1920 ?
4b - using your logic, then soviets suport of revolutions in europe in 20s was proof that soviet empire was evil one and must be destroyed by all means necesary.

Just to show, that NOBODY is innocent little lamb. Yet people argue, that they are innocent, and everyone else is the bad guy. Well guess what - everyone is a shade of gray, no one is black, no one is white.

5. ok, lets just focus on red capelle. was it reliable or not ? yes, it did posted different dates. what actions did soviets taken based on thier dates ? booth wrong and correct one. and what exact others things/dates we ingore ? did you mised that part that i writen that germans changed dates, so these originaly correct dates in end ended as false dates for soviets.

Did you miss the part, where I said it was a guessing game, like the lottery? Soviet Intelligence was reporting, that less than 50% of Wehrmacht was poised East. How could they be sure of reports by Red Capelle? A lot of their reports were false. That's the thing about intelligence. There is no source you can trust 100%. As for what SU was doing - it was increasing the Red Army by covert means. Like the big training exercise, for which they called up 800,000 reservists in May-June, transferred a lot of units from their home bases deep within the country closer to the western border, etc.

6. mad doctrine just make sure that no hot war occur, but dont make situation to much different than then. and to pick you your idea, to make thinkg more like back then, then lets asume that russians dont have nukes at all,and smaller arrmy, so that they are way weaker , so situation is way more closer that it was back then. so given this what if scenario, do you thinink that us will have right to nuke whole russia based on options of few politicks ? to do exactly what soviets did to finns ?

Why did US invade Iraq in 2003? WMDs? US lied about those. Should we not nuke US for a blatant act of aggression for NO REAL REASON WHATSOEVER?

7. what you meaned by this ? well, in politicks, you dont have to prove anything at all, and can lie all time, but fr safety, here are totaly different standrds. you have to prove that chance off bad thing happening is big enough to jjustify cost of precaution. to put you in picture, it is commonly acept to create campfire in stone circle as fire precaution, together with other things, but you will have realy hard time to justify buing of fire exhaustinioner on concerte lot, because someone here is making campfire.

Finland was making 10 times the number of airfields they had planes for in 1930s. Finland government was propagating Great Finland ideas. Finland was talking to every power hostile to SU with war in mind. That's the proof.

8. well, you got me totaly wrong, you have to prove that winter war was JUSTIFIABLE BY SOVIETS, so far you totaly failed to prove that. you failed to provide anything to back up that they were theat to leningrad, other parts of soviet land. or they ploted with other states against soviets.
and do not get closed this tread, so to not dig up more on your relatives fates, im sorry for that, but honestly, do you realy think that soviet soldiers acted better on finnish territory ?

Yes, Soviets acted way better then Finns, or Germans, or Romanians or Hungarians. No wholesale murders of civilians by Red Army were reported. "2 million rapes in Germany" was number extrapolated by number of reported and PUNISHED rapes in Berlin in something like a 10 day period, by scaling it to entire East Germany. Red Army soldiers were punished for barbaric behavior, unlike Axis powers (and I include Finland here too).

and do you realy think that fins will join war in 41 if there will be no winter war ? what reason for it they will have ? again, in 41 they mainly reclaimed lost territories, and thier advanc more was limited, actualy they didn even conqured all teritories of greater finland.

I absolutely do. Finns didn't have the manpower for prolonged war - they mobilized 18% of their population for Barbarossa, hence no more advances.
What reason did Italians or Hungarians have in participating in Barbarossa? Yet they did. Germans designed a provocation, with soviet-made planes sold to Czechoslovakia used in bombing runs against Hungary to give it an excuse for joining, what makes you think they would not have done something similar with Finland?