[racional]

The USSR did not have to expend much effort in taking eastern Poland.

The poster above wasn't referring to the effort expended in "taking" eastern Poland militarily -- but in subjugating the population and massacring the elites. This was not an accidental byproduct of the invasion; it was part of its intent. Along with the extremely rapid and violent annexation of the Baltic states in the same period.

It wasn't like Soviet troops wandered in these countries, and didn't know what else to do with the local population. The Bolsheviks were against the independence of all 4 of these countries after the end of WW I, and in the years 1919-1920 tried and failed to conquer each of them. Each attempt was swiftly (enough) repulsed, providing the Bolshevik regime with the first of its many deeply embarrassing setbacks.

The main trigger for the M-R pact was of course the question of how to deal the Germans. But judging by how the Soviets focused their energy and attention in these countries 1939-1941, and its relations with them in the interwar years -- it wasn't their only motivation.

Two birds, one stone.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> The Bolsheviks were against the independence of all 4 of these countries after the end of WW I, and in the years 1919-1920 tried and failed to conquer each of them.

The Soviets accepted the independence of Finland, and it was Poland that invaded Soviet Russia in 1920, not the other way around.

[racional]

The Soviets accepted the independence of Finland

That's a weird way of summarizing the the Winter War.

Poland that invaded Soviet Russia in 1920

The places where they met the Red Army were not "Soviet Russia".

Let's stop this tangent, please.

[DiogenesKynikos]

The Winter War occurred in 1940, not the 1919-20 time frame you specifically referenced.

> The places where they met the Red Army were not "Soviet Russia".

You're just wrong about this. The war began with a Polish invasion of Soviet territory.

[racional]

The Winter War occurred in ...

I know, and I'm pretty sure you know that I know. The context was M-R, so that's the time frame I was referring to. Your bringing Finland into this just didn't make sense any sense otherwise, so if I misread you there, that was why.

The war began with ...

Look - I see why you're saying what you're saying. But you're misstating the details, and the overall narrative you're presenting just doesn't add up, given the full context of surrounding events. I'd dissect the matter further, but I just don't think you're engaging in good faith here (either with me, or with the other commenter who jumped in at the same point in the thread). Which is a pity because you're obviously quite knowledgeable about lots of things. But you're also reading things into what people say that just aren't there, and your responses seem to attempt shift the topic rather than address what they're saying.

It's just weird, and not format I can work with.

[DiogenesKynikos]

You wrote this:

> in the years 1919-1920 tried and failed to conquer each of them

Then when I pointed out that the Soviets accepted Finnish independence, you switched to talking about the Winter War, which is 20 years later.

> I know, and I'm pretty sure you know that I know.

I can accept that you know when the Winter War occurred, but then I can't understand why you would raise it to justify a point you specifically made about 1919-20. During the revolution, the Soviets let Finland go. They accepted its independence. You claimed they tried to reconquer it in 1919-20, which is not correct.

[racional]

I can't understand why you would raise it

I misread what you wrote, as already explained.

Give it a rest, please. No one is reading down here anyway.