[sozforex]

Well, if examined history starts in 1939, then agreement looks really bad.

If you extend the starting date to maybe autumn 1918 (Polish–Soviet War, Poland's invasion while Russia is in the state of civil war), then it can be considered as less bad, with some justifications that are not out of the historical norm.

Though that Polish invasion from 1918 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil bolsheviks, trying to recover pre-1772 borders).

Though that Soviet invasion from 1939 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil capitalists and fascists, trying to restore pre-1921 borders).

Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.

[the_af]

> Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.

Well, again context helps (like you showed in the other parts of your comment). Note my comment does not imply the Soviet Union was right in waging war against Finland:

From Wikipedia's article on the Winter War:

> "Joseph Stalin regarded it a disappointment that the Soviet Union could not halt the Finnish revolution. He thought that the pro-Finland movement in Karelia posed a direct threat to Leningrad and that the area and defences of Finland could be used to invade the Soviet Union or restrict fleet movements. During Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary fascist clique"

Again, Stalin's fear and paranoia about other powers invading its territory, which in turn mandated creating buffer or safe zones around the Soviet Union. It's not outlandish, given the USSR's many actual enemies and their history of interference within Russian.

His fears partially proved true (with some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy) when Finland played a (limited) role in assisting the Germans with Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad.

[sozforex]

Oh, I've replied to a reply to your message. I think what you've wrote is closer to my own perception than the reply to your message that I have replied to.

Context - yes, it helps. Though it is hard (impossible?) to construct an encompassing enough context for complex historical events. And it is sometimes too easy to use partial contexts to to help people to perceive events in the right way.

I did not read your comment as telling that invasion of Finland was right. I do consider fear and paranoia existing at that time about external powers as justified.

On "Appeasement" wikipedia page you can read about perception that "fascism was a useful form of anti-communism" held by many.

And as far as I know, Soviet Union was preparing to wage a large war in Europe (just not in 1941).

Part about mental gymnastics - well, that was about what I wrote about justifications. I do not consider it right to justify invasions. Especially when I'm talking about justifications used by a country I was born in / lived almost all my life. But I felt a need to say something in defence of an opinion containing more nuance (yours).

I consider as bad a lot of things that were happening at that time (at any time in history?).

Now that I looking at the chain of the messages - it looks like I've tried to defend (in my own strange way) a comment that was trying to defend another comment =)