onkko wrote:He had to because he didnt have enough power to stop it but he tried to reverse it in winter and other wars.
First of all, I come from Estonia - a country with a very similar background in hating Russians. Also, I do support the fact that the Soviet Union was a ruthless warmonger.
BUT... Where Onkko gets his facts wrong is...
Lenin was a revolutionist who thanks to a political tension between Finland and Czar Russia had an opportunity to hide in Tampere, Helsinki etc. As a result of it, newly formed Soviet Russia with Lenin as their leader was the first country to recognize Finland's declaration of independence (only after that the Western "buddies" like Sweden, France etc joined the de jure support group). So, the claim that "Lenin had to" is bs.
The Soviet Russia that attacked Finland (and Baltics states and etc) was under the leadership of Stalin - Stalin's ruling was an absolute opposite style of leadership. Here, I will agree that the former form of Russia (Stalin's Soviet Union) did not help in forming Finland's independence, but tried to destroy it. However, as we skip another history chapter, Finland did benefit extensively from co-operation with Soviet Union after WW2 (aside the war reparations).
I am not pro-Russian but I cannot help myself to giggle at the idea some people get regarding Russia when their own understanding of history is either entirely flawed or selectively learned.
But on the main topic... Too many variables for me to pick a side. From one point of view, it is unfair if a country A is treated better than a country B when, in practice, the countries should be treated the same way. However, from another point of view, the politics play their role. Russian government does not make it easier to be more trusted. With creating new anti-gay laws etc, this unfair treatment can be regarded as well as a sanction against this undemocratic Putinism.