Comment on Anon judges Karl

<- View Parent
Dasus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

At the time of the revolution finland was more urbanized then the rest of Russia, the population was more concentrated in Helsinki, like you said involved in paper milling

Are you fucking high?

Do you know where paper comes from? What Finland is covered by? What stopped the Ruskis? Forest.

By what inane and/or insane logic do you think that forestry is an urban activity? :DDD

In 1939, Leningrad had 3.1 million people. The entirety of Finland had 3.7 million people. Helsinki had ~250k people.

Most of Finland was just rural. You’re spouting complete fantasy.

Hell, I’m from one of the largest cities in Finland and a vast majority of it is still considered very much rural, there’s only like a square kilometer or so in the centre that’s actually city city.

Zero facts, utter nonsense. The only thing we have is large docks, because we needed large docks for the export for the forest industry. That’s why we build the largest cruise ships in the world ((fact)[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon-class_cruise_ship]).

But you’d be very silly indeed to think that only logging was done on-site, instead of actually making the paper mills and cellulose factories where the logging happens to save driving through half the country.

Most of the country is still empty. Not as empty as Russia, because we just don’t have the space, but it’s not far. Russia is the largest country in the world with vaaaast empty spaces. Finland is quite small. Yet we still only have double the population density. (For comparison the US has almost 10x that, Germany 25x, UK ~29x).

We also had double the population density in 1939.

According to this site

www.macrotrends.net/…/urban-population

www.macrotrends.net/…/urban-population

The urbanisation for both countries in 1960 was very similar at ~55%. However Russia urbanised quicker and then baselined, whereas Finland grew slowly. Ofc that doesn’t tell us much of the 40s but they didn’t have the data and I was loathe to waste time

So yeah, what goals did Russia achieve, if we put away the land claims. Which by the way wasn’t in any way comparable to the splitting of the Koreas. Finland didn’t split in half.

By the end of WWII, Finland lost roughly 12% of our pre-war territory. Korea literally split in half, 48% to 52%. Not comparable. There isn’t an active Finnic population on the Russian side claiming to be the “real Finland”. We lost 0% of our national unity.

My grandma was a refugee thanks to Russkis. She’s still my grandma, spoke Finnish, lived in Finland and I’m Finnish as well. I don’t think the same thing happened in Korea.

So what “initial aims” did the USSR achieve? Their initial aim at invading Finland was to take a tenth of it?

Russia was operating on planned economies, which just don’t function yet. Perhaps in the 24th century, but not yet. For instance they didn’t want to label products like screws, so that people and factories are equal. But that also meant no culpability for the factories or workers for shoddy quality. Which very soon led to them having to actually label the products, ie sort of branding them. Ofc “factory 141 of the worker’s paradise” or smth isn’t exactly unique branding, but to anyone who’s been in the military, numbers can be as much branded as the Coke Santa. For instance a lot of people will know the 101st Airborne Division. That’s just a number.

So despite their ideals with the planed economy, the USSR actually ended up doing a lot of market economy things, because they’re not in market economies “just because” but because they have functionality. Capitalism might take those things too far and pervert them, but Soviet communism didn’t see any value in any of them and failed.

Anyway, eagerly waiting your response on how forestry is an urban activity lololol

source
Sort:hotnewtop