I never said forestry was an urban industry, I said milling was, just like mining coal and iron aren’t urban but they’re indictive of the urban industry of steel production.
I’m also not saying that Finland is a dense country, just that its population was more concentrated then Russia at 1917.
The point I’m trying to make is that Russia on the eve of the revolution was less urbanized and industrialized then Finland. By the 1960s they had caught up, as you have shown, and I am saying that it was communism that allowed them to catch up.
Then, as you’ve shown, by the war Russia had caught up to Finland. I am saying this is because of communism and Stalin’s five year plans. Since Finland had the lead and lost it that means they progressed/developed/urbanized/industrialized at a slower rate under market socialism then the soviets did under a planned economy.
As for the goals, prior to the war the soviets demanded:
A border shift on the Karelian Isthmus, pushing it back from Leningrad (the USSR wanted roughly 25-30 km more buffer)
A lease on Hanko (a peninsula) for a naval base
Several islands in the Gulf of Finland
Parts of the Rybachi Peninsula in the Arctic north
In exchange, the USSR offered Finland a larger but less valuable swath of territory in Karelia further north
Finland refused, the Soviets invaded and in the peace treaty the soviets got:
The entire Karelian Isthmus, including Viipuri (Finland’s second-largest city)
Significant additional territory around Lake Ladoga
Parts of the Salla region and Rybachi Peninsula
A lease on Hanko (not just the original ask, but now as a full military base)
So they achieved there original goals and then some. They didn’t conquer finland, but it’s debatable whether that was a goal in the first place.
My comparison to korea wasn’t about scale or dividing the country, it was about setting an initial goal, getting ambitious and trying to go for it all, then pulling back and still achieving the initial goal.
Not saying a planned economy is always the right path to development, by the 1960s the soviets had stalled out due to lack of innovation. I’m saying that it can lead to rapid development when catching up, as innovation isn’t required so much as organizing to copy existing systems. In the 1930s the Soviet union did that and developed the country faster then even capitalism could’ve done.
The point I’m trying to make is that Russia on the eve of the revolution was less urbanized and industrialized then Finland.
Yeah and you have zero sources for that. Everything points the other way.
The article also says that Finland was (and is) an agrarian society. You’re just trying to defend USSR losses, clearly.
“Noo noo USSR had it worse and less industry and Finns were all in cities, doing forestry.”
Fucking insane man stop the brain rot propaganda
Edit also Hanko military base wasn’t achieved in WWII. The Ruskis had it for like two years. Like I said, the invasion into Russia was successful. But you already forgot about your “if the snow had thawed Ruskis would’ve taken all of Finland”-bit?
I just gave you two sources, they say that in 1914 Russia was 2% industrial workers while Finland was 12%. Are you denying these numbers or that 12 is greater then 2?
Yes Finland was an agrarian society but Russia was moreso, again the source says Finland was 66% agrarian while Russia was 80% . 80 is greater then 66, idk how to spell this out clearer.
So either give me some sources for different numbers on industrial workers, or explain to me how 2 is greater then 12 and 66 is greater then 80
Noo noo USSR had it worse and less industry and Finns were all in cities, doing forestry."
I never said the USSR had it worse, I said imperial Russia before the revolution had it worse. I never said Finland were all in cities, just that more of them were in cities then Russia. Again I never said they were doing forestry in the cities i said they were doing paper milling. Stop putting words in my mouth, you can clearly see the comment history.
“They’re doing forestry, all of them in Helsinki!”
What are “implications”?
If only the snow had thawed, the Finns would’ve lost
Doesn’t even realise continuation war went on for several years.
Like literally you’re living in a fantasy that’s clearly been programmed into your brain. Has very little to do with reality.
You can see that from reading the comments you’ve left.
You’re arguing the Grand Duchy of Finland was more urbanised than Russia, which has a city of millions of people literally a few hours away from most Finns. We still don’t even have a city with a million people. You’re trying to pretend that Finland was really “urbanised” when there still even isn’t a large city, to be frank. Even the way a city is defined is different in different places.
The capital area is starting to resemble an urban area. You just keep living in your Soviet propaganda fantasies, I don’t really mind
that’s clearly been programmed into your brain. Has very little to do with reality.
I’m an American , none of this has been programmed into my brain, if anything I got programmed to think the soviets are bad through my education. I’m just reading Wikipedia.
Meanwhile you started this off with a propaganda meme with false numbers. You seem to be projecting because if anything your programmed through your schooling and national mythology that hypes up the winter war.
You don’t seem to want to accept that finland was more urbanized for some reason even though you’ve given no sources and I’ve given two which you don’t want to address.
Just because st Petersburg exists doesn’t mean the rest of Russia is just as urbanized. China has tons of cities with more then 10 million but it’s still less urbanized then say belgium which has no cities bigger then 10 million. They’re on different scales, just like Finland and russia
Population density isn’t an exact match for urbanization. Saudi arabia has a very small population density but high urbanization rate because no one live in the giant desert that occupies most of the country. Same with Finland and it’s vast swaths of forest and tundra where no one lives
I never said forestry was an urban industry, I said milling was, just like mining coal and iron aren’t urban but they’re indictive of the urban industry of steel production.
I’m also not saying that Finland is a dense country, just that its population was more concentrated then Russia at 1917.
The point I’m trying to make is that Russia on the eve of the revolution was less urbanized and industrialized then Finland. By the 1960s they had caught up, as you have shown, and I am saying that it was communism that allowed them to catch up.
On the eve of the revolution / independence 66% of Finns were working in agriculture/forestry while 12% were working in industry while in 1914 Russia was 80% agriculture and 2% industrial
Then, as you’ve shown, by the war Russia had caught up to Finland. I am saying this is because of communism and Stalin’s five year plans. Since Finland had the lead and lost it that means they progressed/developed/urbanized/industrialized at a slower rate under market socialism then the soviets did under a planned economy.
As for the goals, prior to the war the soviets demanded:
Finland refused, the Soviets invaded and in the peace treaty the soviets got:
So they achieved there original goals and then some. They didn’t conquer finland, but it’s debatable whether that was a goal in the first place.
My comparison to korea wasn’t about scale or dividing the country, it was about setting an initial goal, getting ambitious and trying to go for it all, then pulling back and still achieving the initial goal.
Not saying a planned economy is always the right path to development, by the 1960s the soviets had stalled out due to lack of innovation. I’m saying that it can lead to rapid development when catching up, as innovation isn’t required so much as organizing to copy existing systems. In the 1930s the Soviet union did that and developed the country faster then even capitalism could’ve done.
Yeah and you have zero sources for that. Everything points the other way.
The article also says that Finland was (and is) an agrarian society. You’re just trying to defend USSR losses, clearly.
“Noo noo USSR had it worse and less industry and Finns were all in cities, doing forestry.”
Fucking insane man stop the brain rot propaganda
Edit also Hanko military base wasn’t achieved in WWII. The Ruskis had it for like two years. Like I said, the invasion into Russia was successful. But you already forgot about your “if the snow had thawed Ruskis would’ve taken all of Finland”-bit?
I just gave you two sources, they say that in 1914 Russia was 2% industrial workers while Finland was 12%. Are you denying these numbers or that 12 is greater then 2?
Yes Finland was an agrarian society but Russia was moreso, again the source says Finland was 66% agrarian while Russia was 80% . 80 is greater then 66, idk how to spell this out clearer.
So either give me some sources for different numbers on industrial workers, or explain to me how 2 is greater then 12 and 66 is greater then 80
I never said the USSR had it worse, I said imperial Russia before the revolution had it worse. I never said Finland were all in cities, just that more of them were in cities then Russia. Again I never said they were doing forestry in the cities i said they were doing paper milling. Stop putting words in my mouth, you can clearly see the comment history.
What are “implications”?
Doesn’t even realise continuation war went on for several years.
Like literally you’re living in a fantasy that’s clearly been programmed into your brain. Has very little to do with reality.
You can see that from reading the comments you’ve left.
You’re arguing the Grand Duchy of Finland was more urbanised than Russia, which has a city of millions of people literally a few hours away from most Finns. We still don’t even have a city with a million people. You’re trying to pretend that Finland was really “urbanised” when there still even isn’t a large city, to be frank. Even the way a city is defined is different in different places.
The capital area is starting to resemble an urban area. You just keep living in your Soviet propaganda fantasies, I don’t really mind
Look at the population density.
Fkin delulu
I’m an American , none of this has been programmed into my brain, if anything I got programmed to think the soviets are bad through my education. I’m just reading Wikipedia.
Meanwhile you started this off with a propaganda meme with false numbers. You seem to be projecting because if anything your programmed through your schooling and national mythology that hypes up the winter war.
You don’t seem to want to accept that finland was more urbanized for some reason even though you’ve given no sources and I’ve given two which you don’t want to address.
Just because st Petersburg exists doesn’t mean the rest of Russia is just as urbanized. China has tons of cities with more then 10 million but it’s still less urbanized then say belgium which has no cities bigger then 10 million. They’re on different scales, just like Finland and russia
Population density isn’t an exact match for urbanization. Saudi arabia has a very small population density but high urbanization rate because no one live in the giant desert that occupies most of the country. Same with Finland and it’s vast swaths of forest and tundra where no one lives