November 1939 - 250 thousand Finns against 425 thousand soviets. (12% of the soviet army).
March 1940 - 265 thousand Finns against 760 thousand soviets. (18% of the soviet army).
Numbers for Finns are given according to Finnish sources, so they may be somewhat understated.
Where are these numbers coming from?
1. Virrankoski P. Suomen Historia 2. — 2001.
2. Kakela E. Laguksen miehet, marskin nyrkki: Suomalainen panssariyhtyma 1941—1944. — 1992.
These sources are referred to by the Russian Wikipedia.
The Soviet numbers are works edited by Krivosheev.
My mistake: I quoted a number of 265,000 for March 1940, in fact it's November 1939 by Russian sources.
That's the problem with pulling from Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia has contradicting sources putting peak Finnish strength at 360,000, and the Soviets at 1,000,000 total (including air forces, your 760,000 is correct for the army alone).
The Soviet source considers the Finnish army as: the operating Finnish army + militia units + volunteers from other countries.
The Finnish source is (apparently) only a functioning army. In my opinion, the Russian / Soviet source is more objective.
1. How do you know that from a Wikipedia page?
1. This is my guess. Another number of the Finnish army on the border with the USSR can meet as 600 thousand (November 1939). This taking into account the trained reserve.(Krivosheev).
So based on pure guessing you're going to evaluate the methodology of sources you've never read? Come on.
I did not say anything about the methodology. I quoted from Krivosheev's work.
Here's a summary of this conversation. You're directly referencing Wikipedia, you say it's your "guess" about the methodology of counting army size, indicating you haven't read the sources. You're judging methodology based on sources you've never read.
Not to mention 600,000 Finns is a ridiculous number, especially for 1939. The Finns didn't even have 300,000
rifles at the start of the war!
What choice did the USSR have? According to secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - Europe was divided into spheres of influence of major powers. (Germany and the USSR). Germany should not interfere in the sphere of influence of the USSR and vice versa. In the text of the secret protocols nothing is said about the occupation of other states.
You need to reread the
protocols. They're not long. Here are some choice quotes:
1. In the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the
Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern border of
Lithuania is simultaneously the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and
the USSR.
"Territorial-political reorganization." Hmm...I wonder what that means?
2. In the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the
Polish Republic, the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR
will run approximately along the Pisa, Narew, Vistula, and San rivers.
There's that "territorial-political reorganization" again. I wonder if Poland is planning on reorganizing itself or will the Germans and Soviets help them out?
The question of whether it is in the (signatories') mutual interest to preserve the
independent Polish State and what the borders of that state will be can be
ascertained conclusively only in the course of future political development.
Well I guess that answers that. Annexation it is then!
3. Concerning southeastern Europe, the Soviet side emphasizes the interest of
the USSR in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political
disinterest in these areas.
And while we're at it the USSR will take Bessarabia too!
This was the only chance to help Czechoslovakia and stop Hitler. Poland refused, and then - took part in the section of Czechoslovakia. A little later - she started talking about "a blow in the back." Not very logical.
So the Poles were being deceptive but the Soviets were altruistic? That's good for a laugh. Perhaps the Poles didn't want the Soviet army on their southern border as well given the Soviet claims on its territory.
As a citizen of Russia, I can confidently say: this is not true. You need to be part of another civilization (there are three civilizations in the world) and have a different mentality to see the differences in historiography.
Like political censorship, towing the party line, restricting topics or removing them altogether?
I have two concrete examples of censorship in Western states:
1. There is a good documentary cycle "Soviet storm", there was a series about Stalingrad. In the Russian version of the film it is said about a small percentage of members of the blocking squads and that their main task is to stop the panic and return the soldiers to their units, and not shoot them In the English version - this episode is cut out.
Is there any evidence that this was government-ordered?
2. Do you remember the war on 08/08/08? One woman with her daughter was invited to an American TV, and then, when she began to speak words in support of Russia - the broadcasting was interrupted.
Don't remember that at all, but again was it government-ordered? If this is all the "censorship" you have then you really need to look at Soviet historiographical studies and see how they compare. There's absolutely no comparison quantitatively or qualitatively to
anything in the West.
So, Soviet people - do they turn out complete fools once they believe in her? Or is there still another reason?
When all you hear is propaganda and/or propagandized versions of history, then that makes up your whole worldview. That's not the fault of the people, but that doesn't make it less true.
Because the "world revolution" is a way of surviving a weak Soviet Russia surrounded by a hostile capitalist world.
It's almost like the rest of the world didn't want a revolution and didn't appreciate the Soviets making overtures to one. Seriously, the Soviets were like a little brother who keeps poking you until you finally get mad, then acts like he didn't do anything and questions your anger.
.
