- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Invading other countries for the purpose of forcibly installing communist governments is counter to Soviet ideology.
The Marxist-Leninist ideology that guided the Soviet Union held that communist revolution wasn't just desired, it was inevitable. There was no need to export the revolution, because it would just happen by itself. They of course would support other communists across the world, as they did in Spain and China, and after WWII they elevated pre-existing communist parties in Eastern Europe to position's in power. Decades later they would go to war in Afghanistan to support the communist government there.
So invading other countries just for the purpose of installing communist government's is counter to what the Soviets believe, which is that they don't need to do that, because communist revolution will inevitably happen anyway. And they didn't. Finland and the Baltics had nothing to do with exporting communism. Putting communists in power in Eastern Europe was just the easiest way to ensure compliance.
Major cope alert.
The unbiased assessment, or the objective reality as the Soviets liked to call it, was that strategic concerns have always trumped moral quandaries. When faced with a dilemma of the two the strategic issues always take priority.
The UK flat out invaded Iceland during WWII after the Icelandic government refused to join the Allies. It was a completely illegal invasion by any definition, but of course no one really objected.
And I'm not going to defend the UK here. They were fine firebombing civilians. There's no innocent country in the entire war. But there are some that are far better than others.
I don't see how. The ability to meaningfully target Soviet industry and resources is beyond the capability of the IJA.
Is that true if the US continues to supply oil?
No, it really isn't.
German planning for the invasion had been finalized by June and German forces were being put in position months before the Pact was signed. I see no evidence to suggest the invasion was contingent on the MRP when it was being planned and prepared long before the negotiations were even underway, which didn't start until August 10-12th. The invasion had been laid out in April and final operational planning concluded on June 15th, with German troops mobilizing the week after.
Given how militaries plan ahead for lots of contingencies and scenarios, this isn't really convincing to me. Obviously they wanted to invade Poland, but having plans ahead of time doesn't mean that they're going to do it even without the pact.