[vesinisa]

Here's a much better article from the Finnish public broadcaster giving more context: https://yle.fi/a/74-20161606

My comments:

The important thing to note that at this point it's just a political posturing and an announcement of intent. They haven't shown any concrete technical plan how this would actually be executed.

> "Of course, we are very pragmatic and realistic, we cannot do this in five years. Planning will continue until the end of the decade, and maybe in 2032 we can start construction."

Once they have the cost estimates and effects on existing rail traffic studied, I bet construction will never start.

[sbuttgereit]

On the other hand....

"Unification to standard gauge on May 31 – June 1, 1886 [United States]

In 1886, the southern railroads agreed to coordinate changing gauge on all their tracks. After considerable debate and planning, most of the southern rail network was converted from 5 ft (1,524 mm) gauge to 4 ft 9 in (1,448 mm) gauge, then the standard of the Pennsylvania Railroad, over two days beginning on Monday, May 31, 1886. Over a period of 36 hours, tens of thousands of workers pulled the spikes from the west rail of all the broad gauge lines in the South, moved them 3 in (76 mm) east and spiked them back in place.[6] The new gauge was close enough that standard gauge equipment could run on it without problem. By June 1886, all major railroads in North America, an estimated 11,500 miles (18,500 km), were using approximately the same gauge. To facilitate the change, the inside spikes had been hammered into place at the new gauge in advance of the change. Rolling stock was altered to fit the new gauge at shops and rendezvous points throughout the South. The final conversion to true standard gauge took place gradually as part of routine track maintenance.[6] Now, the only broad-gauge rail tracks in the United States are on some city transit systems."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge_in_the_United_Stat...

[PaulRobinson]

An impressive feat, that is unlikely unachievable on a modern train network.

The tolerances are just a bit tighter, the risks and liabilities are higher, and the workforce just isn't "there" - this is from a time when rail was a huge money earner and could afford to employ a huge number of people. Today? Not so much, pretty much anywhere in the World.

[Suppafly]

>The tolerances are just a bit tighter, the risks and liabilities are higher, and the workforce just isn't "there"

Sure, but they do it with big machines that ride down the rails now instead of lining up thousands of men with sledge hammers.

[crote]

There are no ready-made gauge changing machines, though. Not exactly a big market for those.

[mikewarot]

There are ready-made machines that pull up track, and replace sleepers... it shouldn't be a major project to allow it to change the gauge of the rail as it resets it.

[wkat4242]

Once Spain and Portugal move from Iberian gauge that market will increase a lot. Which is kinda inevitable with the added environmental pressure on flights.

[wyan]

It is taking decades to achieve though!

[reaperducer]

There are no ready-made gauge changing machines, though. Not exactly a big market for those.

So what? I'd there isn't a machine, you build one.

Large industries like mining and shipping and the military don't just stop because they can't buy a needed item off the shelf because there isn't a market for it. They build stuff all the time.

I worked in a factory for a few years, and can tell you that if industries followed your "can't do" attitude, commerce would stop.

[owenversteeg]

Yeah, in theory, but the vibes are different.

Let’s say you have a problem and the only way to solve it is with a thingamabob. The thingamabob doesn’t exist, so you need to make the first one. Unknown to everyone, the military, the O&G/mining industry, and the rail industries all try to build one at the same time. Do you think they all cost the same? What about the time to design and build them?

The oil and gas people will call up some machinists and engineers the same day. Time is money and they need the problem solved. It doesn’t need to look pretty. I don’t think anyone would disagree that they would be the first with a thingamabob. First one might break, they’d get Bob on a Cessna from the nearest machine shop with a replacement.

The military would have some meetings, which would spawn more meetings, and eventually put out some requests for proposals. They’d review the proposals and ten years later they’d have their thingamabob. No doubt it would be the most expensive.

The rail industry… the modern, passenger rail industry in wealthy western countries? There might be proposals, or designs or prototypes with large amounts of money spent, but I think it is reasonable to say the thingamabob would never actually be built and used. Look at CAHSR or Stuttgart 21 or Turin-Lyon.

[red_admiral]

Switzerland has some for narrow (meter) gauge to standard gauge. I think it's to make the Glacier Express run without changing train. Had a bit of teething problems at the start but seems to be working well now.

That's not a "change gauge for a 100-wagon freight train" scale operation, and it's not "off the shelf" tech, but we're fairly close I think?

[Suppafly]

>There are no ready-made gauge changing machines, though. Not exactly a big market for those.

I'm not a train guy, but I'm pretty sure the machine that lifts the track up and allows them to swap out the ties is like 95% of what would be needed for a gauge changing machine.

[hedora]

In the US, rail tolerances seem to be getting looser over time, and derailments are still uncommon.

I’d guess that overseas modern non-high speed trains could deal with it. The passengers might not put up with it though.

[sehansen]

There have been around 3 derailments per day in the US in the past few years: https://www.nlc.org/resource/interactive-rail-safety-map-see...

[fuddy]

A country that would put up with US rail is a big ask.

[panick21_]

Derailments are incredibly common in the US.

[mschuster91]

> this is from a time when rail was a huge money earner and could afford to employ a huge number of people.

Well, back then the US had freshly banned slavery, so there was an ample workforce that could be hired for dirt cheap.

The Soviets and the Wehrmacht pulled off similar feats in WW2, but back then the rails and sleepers didn't have to be built to last many decades, so in addition to loads upon loads of forced labor from concentration camps and gulags, the work effort was massively reduced because easier technology could be used.

[metadat]

Corresponding discussion:

The Days They Changed the Gauge (1966) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8371773 (2014, 15 comments)

And a related discussion:

Why BART uses a nonstandard broad gauge - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32031131 (2022, 253 comments)

The BART discussion was where I first learned about the North American 2-day gauge change. A truly inspiring feat for so many engineers to come together across such a large amount of land area to Make It Happen.

[dehrmann]

Makes it even crazier that Bart would choose a non-standard gauge 75 years later. And now they're stuck paying for custom trains with less flexibility and longer lead times.

[wbl]

BART was always going to need custom trains for other reasons beyond track gauge. Electric third rail at those speeds isn't standard. 125kV pantagraph would mean big expensive tunnels and stations due to clearance requirements.

[badc0ffee]

Electric third rail at 130 km/h? The LIRR does it, with standard gauge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road

I also don't know where you're getting 125kV from. Many trains throughout the world use 25kV, especially high-speed ones (actually high speed, like 200+km/h), but BART uses 1000V, which is closer to a typical subway system.

[fanf2]

Third rail lines south of London often run at 90mph and up to 100mph in places. BART’s top speed is 80mph.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

12.5kV?

[wbl]

Thank you!

[Gravityloss]

Amazing.

I wonder if one can do anything like this with the current concrete sleepers and thermite welded tracks.

[IAmBroom]

The welds could be cut and rewelded, obviously.

The sleepers are molded with preset widths, however, and would need replacement.

[close04]

Probably the biggest challenge is that there is way more rail traffic today and it's more tightly coupled in logistics chains and people's day to day lives. Disruptions are more expensive and harder to tolerate. And that's on top of the technical challenges, tolerances leave less room for error today.

[shaftoe]

(US centric assumption)

It might be easier to change today than it was in 1886. Back then, trains were really the only means of travel between cities. Today, there are less passenger trains than back then, though more freight (even with trucks and planes). But freight diversions/delays could be scheduled well in advance and have alternative means. Not to mention, since then we've developed variable gauge train tech. A subset of trains could run during the cutover.

It's likely more costly today, but less disruptive.

[MyPasswordSucks]

Passenger travel is easy mode. The economic consequences of disrupted freight dwarf anything you could imagine from disrupted passenger travel of equal duration. That's why the US has always strived to do a really, really good job with their freight rail system, and US freight is still to this day generally considered the best freight rail system in the world, even as passenger rail lags well behind.

Remember that freight is more than just moving pallets of finished goods to Amazon warehouses. It doesn't matter if you've given the cows a month's advance notice, if they don't have feed they're still going to starve; and no matter how many KPIs you dangle at the silos, they're only going to hold x amount of reserve grain.

[Reason077]

> "Today, there are less passenger trains than back then"

I don't think this is true in Europe. Certainly in the UK, passenger rail volume since the 2010s has set records higher than in any previous years, exceeding numbers that were last seen before WW2. Today there are fewer miles of track than there were in that era, but modern signalling technology allows more trains to operate safely on the same tracks, and modern trains run much faster on average.

As for freight, the US actually moves a significantly greater portion of its freight by rail than Europe does. Rail has around 40% modal share for freight in the US vs only 17% in Europe. One reason for this is that in Europe many lines are congested with passenger traffic, leaving few slots for freight trains to operate - except late at night.

[Gravityloss]

Since it's only 90 mm, I wonder if one could add some sort of a 45 mm lateral adapter between the rails and the ties on both sides. At least for low speed track parts...

[Cthulhu_]

Probably not, but laying track or replacing sleepers is a very satisfying to look at, fully automated process.

[phkahler]

Imagine one short "train" whose tail is able to pull up one rail of the track behind it. Then another train whose front is an automated thingamajig to take the loose rail and nail it down a specific distance from the fixed rail. How much play there is in the loose rail depends on how far apart these two train are. Notice that the nailer runs on the narrow rails while the nail-puller runs on the wide ones.

[gosub100]

Even the wooden sleepers would have to be weakened by moving the spikes over. Unless the old holes were patched.

[nayuki]

> Now, the only broad-gauge rail tracks in the United States are on some city transit systems.

One such oddball is the TTC subway/streetcar gauge of 1495 mm in Toronto, Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto-gauge_railways

[earnestinger]

Does it imply that, Toronto finally is one of United States cities with broad gauge rail tracks?

[noelrock]

So odd - was listening to an account of this in an Audiobook just yesterday - "Why Nothing Works" by Marc Dunkelman. Was essentially making the point that this sort of thing would be several magnitudes of difficulty harder to pull off today, and certainly wouldn't happen within that timeframe.

[mimsee]

The costs were already studied in 2023 and were deemed cost ineffective[0]. The report contained three main strategies (VE1, VE2, VE3) with A & B plans for the first two. Costs would be in the range of 10-15+ billion with 15-20+ years allocated for construction time[1, p. 47].

[0]: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/1410829/report-shows-that-cha...

[1]: https://api.hankeikkuna.fi/asiakirjat/697c1f25-332b-40ed-9d6...

[Gravityloss]

I agree that a new line at least from Tornio to Oulu would make sense. There's also a lot of heavy industry in the Gulf of Bothnia, like Raahe and Kokkola.

[zokier]

There is one reason for optimism here: Finnish rail network is in quite poor shape and needs major work done anyways. So switching gauge allows funneling more EU funding into these projects that would need to be done either way. I imagine that e.g. the infamous Suomi-rata and ELSA projects will be revived as gauge switch.

[ljlolel]

And would deter Russian invasion (supply lines rule everything around me) which would significantly reduce their large military spending.

[JumpCrisscross]

> would deter Russian invasion

Does Russia still own a lot of 5-foot rolling stock? (Genuine question.) That’s what Finland is on [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_ft_and_1520_mm_gauge_railw...

[jabl]

There's enough tolerance that you can run 1520mm rolling stock on 1524mm track and vice versa.

[FpUser]

Now you owe me a coffee and a keyboard

[logifail]

> funneling more EU funding

I'm sure EU taxpayers will be presented with a solid business case demonstrating value for money before our €billions are spent on a project such as this.

Oh, wait, this is the EU.

Most likely a deal would be thrashed out between key players via Whatsapp but that "due to their ephemeral nature"[0] we aren't entitled to read any of their messages.

[0] see https://www.politico.eu/article/pfizergate-ursula-von-der-le...

[Vinnl]

To be fair, if we imagine a future in which this did happen, the start would also look like this, so who knows.

[dotancohen]

Underestimating the Finns' ability to just get stuff done seems to be a common motif throughout history.

[cladopa]

>Once they have the cost estimates and effects on existing rail traffic studied, I bet construction will never start.

It is not that hard. Countries like Spain have already two different gauges and have the necessary technology in the trains to change between different systems.

[varsketiz]

One of the main goals of this is to not have the russian gauge available in case russians attack, so that logistics deeper into Finland cant happen easily with the same train, so backwards compatability is not desired.

[potato3732842]

It's not like this results in a categorical difference in difficulty. Gauge switching infrastructure is common at borders. Yeah stopping and switching is slower than driving right through but it's not the end of the world in the long tail of military logistics.

[theshrike79]

Russian military logistics _heavily_ depend on trains, everything that can go on a train, does so. Flight and vehicle stuff is mostly an afterthought.

Any hindrance we can put on the Finnish-Russian border to stop them just unloading 12 cars of fresh troops in the middle of the country is a good thing.

[paddy_m]

Another fun note about Russian logistics, they aren't palletized or mechanized. Thought being that cranes don't look good in parades. The train side seems smart or at least interesting, the pallets incredibly dumb.

https://x.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716

[theshrike79]

Compare this to the completely bonkers logistics of the US Military: https://youtu.be/iIpPuJ_r8Xg

Even Unicef has a massive logistics center in Denmark with pallets of stuff categorised and ready to be sent for any emergency: https://www.unicef.org/supply/warehousing-and-distribution

[jabl]

Why invest in forklifts, container infrastructure etc. if your military has a near-endless supply of uneducated conscripts you can order to shuffle around shells and other items?

(Of course a more thorough analysis would probably come to the conclusion that better logistics is worth it. There's still an opportunity cost for those conscripts who could do something else instead, like dying in zerg rushes on the Ukrainian front. And even though those conscripts are 'free' they still require chow and a place to sleep etc.)

[kranke155]

This is a debunked post I think.

[kibwen]

Gauge switching requires trains outfitted with specialized axles (increasing the cost to invade), requires trains to stop (increasing the train's vulnerability to attack), and requires switching stations which themselves are juicy targets and can't be repaired nearly as trivially as an ordinary length of rail.

[stuaxo]

It adds time for each train though.

[phkahler]

And if you're Russia wanting to invade Europe, it's better to do the Gauge switching right near your own border rather than on the far side of Finland. So while this may make it harder to invade Finland, it makes it easier to invade Europe as a whole.

[gbear605]

The far side of Finland? That’s the Baltic Sea. Sure, there’s a little bit of Sweden, but it’s so far north that there isn’t much rail infrastructure there - certainly little enough that it could quickly be destroyed at the beginning of a war.

[dmurray]

The stated reason for the gauge change is "to remove technical obstacles to transporting troops and goods between Finland, Sweden and Norway".

Those few connections in the sparse north of the country are the entire point.

[_w1tm]

If the supply line is blown up at the beginning of the war then what was the point of switching gauges.

[Cthulhu_]

The objective they try to achieve is not to slow down Russia's invasion into Europe, but to stop them at the border by being able to move assets throughout Europe relatively quickly. If they gain a proper foothold and full access to "euro gauge" rails, it's a different fight.

Of course, if it does go that far, tanks and trains can move rolling stock, rip up the tracks, blow up bridges and other infrastructure behind them if they're forced to retreat.

[dcow]

This. I am struggling to see how this is anything other than posturing by politicians. It’s hard to imagine this is strategy devised by military leaders.

[dotancohen]

But if the Spanish can muster dual gauge trains, what's to prevent the Russians from doing the same? Or is the Finnish gauge a state secret?

[Cthulhu_]

It's less about what the Russians can do and more about how fast European and NATO countries can move assets to a potential invasion front line; as it stands, they're slowed down at the borders needing to switch to the different gauges.

[bell-cot]

> what's to prevent

Conceptually? Nothing.

But building such trains, at scale, takes a load of resources. Resources which could otherwise be used to build tanks, guns, missiles, and similar high-priority products.

[int_19h]

I would also imagine that large-scale retrofitting of traincars with variable gauge adaptations is something that would be hard for foreign intelligence services (including the Finnish one to miss) - and would then serve as a signal that Russia is indeed preparing for an invasion.

[IAmBroom]

Also:

> what's to prevent

Russian lack of logistical planning.

[theshrike79]

The difference between Finnish and Russian gauge is 4mm

IIRC the diff to European standard is closer to 10cm, still doable but a hurdle compared to just driving a trainload of troops to the middle of Helsinki it's a bit harder

[T-A]

First sentence from the article: The Finnish government has announced the conversion of its rail network from Russian gauge (1,524 mm) to European standard (1,435 mm).

1524 - 1435 = 89

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_ft_and_1520_mm_gauge_railway...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-gauge_railway

[ta1243]

So "closer to 10cm" then

Clearly not "doable", without guage changing bogies.

[dotancohen]

  > The difference between Finnish and Russian gauge is 4mm

What is the acceptable tolerance? It doesn't sound like a huge engineering effort to design a boogie compatible with both without requiring switching.

[CapitalistCartr]

Train tracks are normally not precise to within 4mm anyway, and wheels are wide enough to tolerate that.

[orthoxerox]

There used to be a St.Pete-Helsinki high-speed train before the war, Allegro. It was built with bogies for a 1522mm gauge.

[anticensor]

Yes, the acceptable tolerance is -4mm+7mm.

[adrianmsmith]

> One of the main goals of this is to not have the russian gauge available in case russians attack

This doesn't seem like it can be a goal given

> maybe in 2032 we can start construction

I mean unless the plan is to assume Russia won't attack until e.g. 2040 when construction will be complete && Russia can't implement multi-gauge trains that Spain is already using now?

[kibwen]

Even if Russia's conquest of Ukraine were to end tomorrow, they would take a few years to recover before mounting their next offensive. And Finland isn't first in line on their list of next invasion targets, that would be either Georgia, Moldova, or the Baltics.

And in any case, just as in computer security, a security posture does not need to be unassailable, it just needs to be expensive enough to deter the enemy. NATO countries (well, the ones that haven't already been compromised by Russia) will be happy to fund the gauge switch, as would the EU in general for the sake of greater economic integration. Meanwhile, it increases the costs on Russia and slows their advance. It's a win no matter what.

[sidewndr46]

Given the disaster that is the Ukrainian invasion, this doesn't really hold true. As long as leadership is OK with a total logistical clusterfuck, you don't need to worry about "years to recover" for your next offensive. The next offensive starts today. You can figure out the details as you go.

[FpUser]

>"Meanwhile, it increases the costs on Russia and slows their advance. It's a win no matter what."

Following logic it also increases your own costs and wastes money that could've been allocated to produce weapons and other more effective preventive measures.

[celticninja]

there are economic benefits to closer integration with the EU that the weapons would not provide.

[kibwen]

Fortunately, a country can pursue many things simultaneously, which is often more generally effective than pursuing a single thing to the detriment of all others, thanks to diminishing returns.

[int_19h]

> that would be either Georgia, Moldova, or the Baltics.

Or Kazakstan, although China might object there.

[vintermann]

Russia can't just attack anywhere it wants to. Putin is not Kim Il-sung, he can't count on any order to be blindly obeyed. It took years of propaganda, unfortunately armed with a couple of actually good points (mostly supplied by the neonazi nationalist wing in Ukraine, who wanted a war), before he could try actually invading. He had to walk a dangerous game with his own, in particular with his own neonazi supporter Prigozhin, who could easily have come up on top in their inevitable conflict.

He's absolutely not harmless, but neither should we allow ourselves to be distracted by phony countermeasures against the Russian threat, like this gauge shift thing clearly is in my opinion.

[kibwen]

As you suggest, Russia's invasion of Ukraine was bolstered by Russian sympathizers in the east. Every country bordering Russia is incentivized to break free of any sort of alignment with Russia in order to reduce the threat of local insurgency which will aid Russia in its invasion. For example, the Baltic countries removing Russian from their list of official languages, in addition to decoupling from the Russian power grid. There are a lot of steps to be taken, and a lot of them will take decades. Fortunately, Russia's capacity to wage war measured against their number of potential targets means that it would take them decades to reconquer it all, assuming Europe steps up to fund the defense. Train gauge alignment is just one of many steps towards this end, and the sooner the better.

[anonymars]

I think this overstates the challenges, especially given the last 10+ years of despots doing things they shouldn't just be able to do. Waking up one day to find that the US has invaded Canada is now a non-negligible possibility.

I think they are up to the challenge of whipping up some BS casus belli and scaring would-be protesters into submission.

[vintermann]

Like most such things, it's probably mostly symbolic, so politicians can say they're doing something in defiance of Russia (which is a very popular thing to do in Finland right now, or most of the west for that matter). I guess they'll back down on it when by 2032, everyone realizes it doesn't matter since wars will be fought with small autonomous drones and any railroad would be sabotaged in an instant.

[Retric]

What kind of ranges are you expecting from these small drones so logistics suddenly doesn’t matter? Even if something can hypothetically travel thousands of miles, designing disposable weapons with that kind of range has a real cost.

[vintermann]

Sure, logistics matter. I'm sure Russian-gauge railroads in Finland would be mildly convenient for invading Sweden, provided you can first invade and utterly defeat Finland quickly enough that the railways survive.

But if Putin could do that (he can't), railway gauges would be the least of our worries.

[culopatin]

Wouldn’t it be simpler to make a “train moat” by disconnecting rails from Russia? Or would they run the trains on dirt for a mile and re attach?

[bobthepanda]

Building temporary bridges in wartime is pretty normal.

[qingcharles]

Always loved going over the border from France as a kid and they would lift the whole train up and slide the old wheels out and put the new ones in and off you go!

[tarvaina]

Also it is one party (The Finns) presenting a rail initiative competing with their government partner's (National Coalition) older initiative. It is very unlikely that they both will be implemented.

[dang]

Ok, we've changed to that URL from https://www.trenvista.net/en/news/rnhs/finland-migration-sta... above. Thanks!

[WesolyKubeczek]

Or they will start with a few of the most important lines that connect the countries and ports.

[theshrike79]

That was the plan, one rail that can go from somewhere in Finland all the way to central Europe without stopping to change rail gauges.

[WesolyKubeczek]

See also: Rail Baltica

These projects are sloooooooow

[oblio]

Fear of a foreign invasion by a country much larger than your, and one that occupied you once for 200 years and attacked you again just 20 years after independence tends to clear the mind.

[usrusr]

My only surprise is that they haven't already converted. It's not just about military aspects of an invasion, it's also about ease of deportation and ethnic substitution that would have to be expected afterwards in case of a Russian victory. That pattern is all too clearly established.

[dotancohen]

Crazy thing is, I don't live in Finland yet this description could describe our situation almost identically as well. And I can think of yet _another_ place on Earth with a similar situation.

[pydry]

Fear of foreign invasion is also why the Soviet Union invaded during the Winter War ("Greater Finland" irredentism was a thing, and St Petersburg was militarily exposed).

Fear is why Finland allied with the Nazis.

Fear is why the Soviet Union also signed a pact with the Nazis and invaded Ukraine.

It's easy to justify anything with fear.

[oblio]

One is the biggest country on the planet, with 150 million people.

The other one is about 300 sqkm with 5 million people.

When in doubt, use basic logic.

Your argument is the same as Iraq being a realistic threat against the US.

Also, list of Russian neighbors not threatened or invaded by Russia:

Belarus (pushed into a sort of union state)

China (too big)

Japan (I think)

Mongolia (I think)

Azerbaijan (I think)

List of neighbors threatened or invaded by Russia:

Ukraine

Georgia

Moldova (Transnistria occupied since 1991)

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Finland

Poland

[pydry]

>Your argument is the same as Iraq being a realistic threat against the US.

Your argument appears to be that your enemy's fear driven by losing 27 million people during an invasion/war of extermination is exactly equivalent to your country's fear of weapons that were imagined solely for the purposes of justifying an invasion.

My argument was that it is quite easy to get a domestic population to treat all of the enemy's legitimate fears as utterly irrelevant while treating bullshit domestic fears as existential.

In a way I think you helped make this point for me by forgetting about those 27 million deaths.

[oblio]

Which 27 million deaths? Finland never had 27 million inhabitants.

[pydry]

The Soviet Union lost 27 million people in WW2. It was a minor detail you swept under the carpet in your comment.

[StefanBatory]

It's such a mystery why all neighbours of Russia hate Russia and Russians.

If only there was a reason for this.

[pydry]

I can name about 8 who dont. The rest all belong to or tried to join a military bloc which helped rape Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan for no particular reason other than because the gang boss demanded it.

It's more of mystery why particular kinds of westerners are especially sanctimonious about Moscow while bending over backwards to excuse nearly identical behavior from the west.

[earnestinger]

Hate? No.

Wary? Yes.

Seems Necessary given current circumstances.

(After peace comes, and enough time passes, someday, we will be friends again)

[lazide]

Experience.

[pixelesque]

> The other one is about 300 sqkm with 5 million people.

You've missed a few significant figures there, Finland's area is: 338145 km2

[mazurnification]

No, fear is not why Soviet Union allayed with Nazis. Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was agreement in which Nazis and Soviets divided central/eastern Europe between them. They even had join parade after conquering Poland in Brest (Brześć). And yes, they ware allied.

[pydry]

They were fighting Japan at the time, were unable to fight a war on two fronts and Britain had at that point chosen to follow a strategy of appeasement towards the Nazis.

And your idea is that they had zero reason to fear invasion from the west? Even though that is precisely what happened just a few years later?

[mazurnification]

First of all this were USSR-Japan skirmishes not war, second they did not have to worry about Japan as was shown by Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact of April 1941, third if they were worried about Japan then "spending" army on invasion of Poland, Finland, Baltics, Bessarabia were counter productive, fourthly at the time of Ribentrop Molotov pact Britain ceased following appeasement strategy as shown by declaring war to Germany at 3-rd of September 1939 as fulfillment of security guarantees given to Poland in March of 1939.

It is totally ahistoric to pin any actions of USSR on fear or just reaction to external events. If WWII was continuation of WWI (in my and many opinion it was) both Germany and USRR were revanchist powers that wanted to reverse outcome of WWI. Many forgot that Russia later USSR lost WWI badly. Plus Stalin after very, very, bloody consolidation of power in 30ties was ready (in fact it was imperative for regime stability) to start outward aggression/expansion.

Furthermore historian believe that Stalin knew that confrontation w/ Germany is inevitable but (more popular opinion) was estimating it will happen one year later at least or (less popular, even fringe opinion) was amassing forces to attack Germany and was cough by Nazis w/ "pants down". Either scenario would be explanation for initial successes of Operation Barbarossa.

Fun fact - last train with grain from USSR to Germany crossed border few minutes before start of Operation Barbarossa.

In summary - Soviets and Nazis were allies till 1941 - both parties know it was tactical alliance not unlike USSR - GB/USA against Germany and at the very end Japan. Note that after WWII there was cold war between former allies - not unlike like hot war between former alliance parties of Nazis and Soviets.

Second fun fact: Orwell's "oceania was always at war with eastasia" from 1984 is direct reference to how alliances were changing during WWII.

[pydry]

>First of all this were USSR-Japan skirmishes not war, second they did not have to worry about Japan as was shown by Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact of April 1941

...two years after Molotov Ribbentrop.

If they had nothing to worry about Japan it logically follows that they had nothing to worry about Hitler either as was shown by the Molotov Ribbentrop pact.

In 1939 the Soviet military was a disaster, also. It's difficult to overstate just how exposed they were.

>Furthermore historian believe that Stalin knew that confrontation w/ Germany is inevitable

They were right to be afraid.

>In summary - Soviets and Nazis were allies till 1941 -

In summary, out of fear which was entirely legitimate. Fun fact: the only difference between them and Finland is that Finland gets excused for allying to Hitler out of fear by its western allies.

[StefanBatory]

Fear is why Finland allied with the Nazis.

... or maybe because Fins got invaded by Soviets.

[euroderf]

When speaking to Americans, I explain the wartime co-operation between Finland and Germany as, "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my 'friend', but we can do business."

[yencabulator]

I'd go with "Otherwise they would have attacked us also, and we definitely couldn't afford a war on two fronts."

[pydry]

They didnt stop being allied to the Nazis after the winter war was over. Fear maintained that alliance.

Just like fear of "greater finland" made the Soviets invade in the first place.

It's fear all the way down. The only difference is the validity of those fears. Obviously your country's enemies' fears were always invalid while your country's allies' fears were always justified.

[mopsi]

> Just like fear of "greater finland" made the Soviets invade in the first place.

And the fear of Poland made the Nazis invade Poland, right?

Their propaganda no doubt presented things this way, but that was far from the truth. Much like Nazis had to stage a Polish attack on German radio station[1] to justify their invasion of Poland, the USSR had to fabricate the shelling of Mainila[2] to justify the invasion of Finland, because neither Poland nor Finland were apparently threatening enough on their own.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

[pydry]

No. The closest living analog to the Nazis today is our allies in Israel and like the Nazis they arent shy about endless expansionism for the sake of creating lebensraum for their ubermensch. Theyre not very shy about the holocaust theyre committing either.

Russia never went on an extermination drive in order to create an ethnically pure ethnostate.

The biggest western geopolitical mistake of the 2020s is assuming that Israel isnt run by Nazis but Russia is.

>Their propaganda no doubt presented things this way

Every country presents its propaganda in its own way. Pointing that a country that you consider an enemy publishes propaganda without reference to your own serves merely to underscore that accident of birth dictates which flavor of propaganda you believe.

[oblio]

> Just like fear of "greater finland" made the Soviets invade in the first place.

Which "fear" prompted the Soviets to invade Romania in 1940? Which "fear" prompted the Soviets to invade Poland in 1939? Which "fear" prompted the Soviets to invade the Baltics in 1940?

Ah, now I remember, the "fear" of not being the premier colonial power.