this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
311 points (88.0% liked)
Greentext
8400 readers
472 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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