You're expecting the USSR to have imperilled tens of millions of lives and risk wholesale extermination by deliberately undermining their own position based solely on "well, you know for sure!"

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

France and UK committed to it. I don't expect the USSR to have done it, but I would've preferred to see that sort of larger deterrent.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ok.

The USSR isn't obligated to sabotage it's own existence because some random unborn Finish person "would've preferred to see it"

Not to mention the UK and Frances commitment turned out to be extremely token, a fact that came as zero suprise to the USSR

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's this about being obligated

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So what even is your position anymore? You've stayed completely from where you started

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The UK and France didn't commit to jack shit. They had a long history of enabling the Nazis at that point, planning to use them as their attack dog in the east. Not only that, the USSR had been pleading for an anti-nazi alliance for a long time and got ignored.

[–] AEsheron@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Um, they very much did make promises to that effect. Neither were in good position to actually help the Poles when push came to shove, hence the Phony War. Brittain did some good with their navy, but neither could get enough troops to where it mattered to help, so they buckled down on ramping up their own war efforts at home to better mobilize. Did they fo it out of cowardice and throw the Poles to the wolves, or out of necessity because they would have been overrun had they over commited? That's a question that has been the subject of much study. But they both very publicly and loudly commit to their defense, they simply failed to meaningfully uphold that commitment.