Finnish Government cripples Finnish Defense Force with cost cut´s.

[Sarmatian]

You still dont get the idea.With what cost?

I do get it. I just believe that denying a reason for attack is much better guarantee of Finnish independence.

Soviet Union surely had lot to worry from Communist dictatorship.

In this case, I'll pull a Kagemusha and tell you to brush up your history.

Oh are you saying that you are familiar with fourth Strategic offensive? Let me first tell you that it was launched after German forces were cleared from the vicinity of Leningrad and the initial goals were Kotka, Lappeenranta, Kouvola. About 100 kilometers further the offensive reached. But surely you knew that already. At the same time Soviet Union attacked with large forces also North of Lake Ladoga just like in Winter war. But i am sure you knew that already as you have travelled from Stalin wanting only some small pieces from Filand back in 1939 into Finland being spared from occupation as they did not help the Germans after Winter War and arriving into the one Soviet Strategic offenisive after 1943 that did not reach its goals, but instead the peace was made in negotiations unlike how the Soviet Union had demanded for unconditional surrender before it.

I'm not really familiar with the term Fourth Strategic offensive. Are you referring to the Petsamo-Kirkenes offensive? Either way, yes, I maintain that overall goal of any Soviet action in the north was to secure Leningrad and northern lend-lease route, and maybe later to deprive Germany of iron and nickel from Sweden.

Please elaborate.What were the terms. Do you know them?

Finland was asked to surrender territory in the immediate vicinity of Leningrad (thus dismantling a part of Mannerheim line) and a 30 year lease on Hango peninsula and in return it was offered land north of Ladoga.

In the case of the Baltic states, SU wanted (and got) a right to station and move army, ships, planes and artillery on their territory, to use and to build military bases, ports, airfields, ports and other military installations. Under the letter of agreement, Baltic states also promised to help each other and SU in the case of attack and to refrain from being a part of any alliance that might endanger USSR.

I am just growing tired that after i debunk one myth about WWII you throw another one in the air. Maybe just pick a book about it and get into the subject?

Yes, massuh, tenk you massuh...

Also i explained at my very first reply to you the same thing Panzer already agreed upon. The function of the army is to make the enemy bleed so badly that even totalitarian regimes like Soviet Union understood the gain was not in balance with the sacrifice. You on the other hand seem to think that we live in some total war world.

If it comes to Russia invading Finland, it will probably be very close to a total war. In that case you're screwed with or without and army, but, more importantly, I believe it won't come to that in the foreseeable future, in which case, you're fine with or without an army.

Just my opinion, don't hang me for it.

Name them. It will amuse me.

Let me start: Liechtenstein, Monaco, Lesotho, Swaziland...

There's, what, 192 countries in the UN? 102 with armies less than 100,000 makes it more than 50%. Writing 102 countries is a chore, don't make me do it.