Finns........ History Question

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Toad
How come you Finns didn't greet them with wine and flowers too? You evil aggressors!

I think the reason was we ran out of wine and flowers around 1917

[LLv34 Jarsci]

Originally posted by Fishu
I think the reason was we ran out of wine and flowers around 1917

That must be it

Luckily we still had Petsamo and its nickel mines.. We gave lots of that to them

I think they didnīt like the way it was delivered.. (7.62mm )

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Karnak
Gee, you think that the fact that the Soviet Union tried to conquer Finland in 1939 might have played a small part in the Finn's decision to allow Germans to attack through Finland?

Naw, that'd never happen.

Well, Finland got it's part of Russian pie acting together with Germans in 1941-44... They occupied great territory in Karelia, including Petrozavodsk.

All non-Finnish/Saam population was held in concentration camps. Death rate there was significantly higher then in German camps... It's interesting that their occupational policy copied German national segregation. Saams had to wear signs like "relative nationality" on their dress, other population was deprived of basic rights and starved in labour-camps...

Other interesting thing is that Finnish troops were feared more then German SS troops by Soviet civilians.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by crabofix
Soviet had 5 700,000 troops trying to occupy Finland.
The Finns where 200,000. (Loosing 10% of the territory isīnt what I call defeat).
They hold their lines for nearly 4 months.
Bombing civilian targets in a Capital city is very aggresive way.
Shooting at red-cross market cars is also aggresive and a warcrime. Common behavior of especialy: The Soviet Airforce.

(Funny how history often is repeated.)

Stalin tried to rape The Finns, got his Balls kicked in, End of story.

I am proud that My Grandfather where apart of this "ballkicking".

Crabofix

The Soviet goals were achieved, I can call it a complete victory. But the price was horrible. OTOH this war showed us many things, many important decisions were made after this experience. Without it the catastrophe of 1941 could be much worse.

I don't like the fact that VVS bombed Helsinki. I can imagine that they could get such orders, but believe me, if they planned it - it could not end with only 20 victims...

Frankly speaking I never heard about VVS attacking Red Cross cars. Just as well as many Finns never heard about concentration camps in Karelia.

I admit that the White-Finnish war was agressive. (BTW, where the hell did mr. Radio see that I said it wasn't?!) I only disagree that USSR planned to occupy Finland. In March 1940 it could be done with ease, Finns had nothing to stop Red Army.

USSR had a goal, nessesary to survive. We offered a bargain. Then we forced Finns to accept the offer.

Toad insists that all the evil of the XX century comes from my country. At the same time he fails to understand that his "land of free" made absolutely the same thing that USSR was doing to Pribaltica after the War. I don't speak about annexion of Hawaii, invasions to Panama and other Latin-American countris, etc. That was how politics worked at that time. We stepped away from imperial path 12 years ago. Some countries still think that tanks and bombers are the cheapest way to solve problems.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Fishu
Boroda is just telling us what hes been taught

Not exactly so.

What we were told at school was something like "We only had to move the border from Leningrad and had a war with Finland". The horrible losses were not mentioned. I didn't know about Mainila until I was maybe 25, and it made me study the question a little. BTW, in my childhood years noone dared to say that Finland attacked USSR, it was simply ridiculous...

Other things we were not told (not in school history books, but you certainly could find all the information in libraries and press) war the Finnish occupation of Karelia and all that genocide things... Simply because we were friends with Finns (and I hope we still are). Many things were not used in propaganda purposes, such as the fact that Poland got it's part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, allied bombings of German cities, etc. This fact is easily explained...

White-Finnish war left some eternal examples of propaganda. The most impressive thing is Leonid Sobolev's "Seaman's Soul" book of short stories from a front-line journalist. Finns were considered extremely brave and serious enemy...

[miko2d]

In my opinion - backed by some research, invasion of Finland was just the Soviet attempt to grab the territory that was "allocated" to them according to 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop theaty.

 Russians already had the "people" finnish government ready to be imported and assume the puppet rule.

 Allies certainly did something about Poland - french valliantly declared desperate war on Germany they have no hope of winning - especially since their ally England concentrated it's efforts on protecting themselves from superficial damage by keeping essential modern fighters home and sending too few troops to the continent. The US of course did not even think of coming to it's historical friend and enemy help long after it was defeated and Hitler actually declared war on US.
 Still, failure to defend/liberate Poland on the part of France and England does not negate their attempt to do so.

 Also, there is a huge misconception about the relative size of the USSR and finnish forces. While USSR had "5,700,000" troops in it's whole army - incuding millions in the Far East, the logictics of the situation - the layout of railroads, remoteness of the terminals from the front, number and quality of the roads, few meters of snow cover, etc. - would not have permitted to operate more that just a few divisions altogether - few tens of thousands people.

 If it takes more fuel to burn to get there than a car can carry certain distance from the railroad, your operations effectively end at that point. Adding more troops than your ligistics can effectively support causes reduction rather than increase in the combat power.

 Taking prepared positions (20 years of building on the part of brilliant and prophetical Mannerheim) in severe winter conditions with meters of snow cover, limited roands against well-prepared and motivated enemy was quite a feat on russians' part - due mostly to terror of troops of their officers more than death or cold or starvation.

 It was lucky that finns resisted as long as they did to make Stalin stop  and postpone his plans to occupy their country. They could have gotten it back eventually but their intellectual elite, officers, teachers, priests and buisness class would have been exterminated just like those of Poland and baltic countries.

 miko

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Boroda
The Soviet goals were achieved, I can call it a complete victory.

I only disagree that USSR planned to occupy Finland. In March 1940 it could be done with ease, Finns had nothing to stop Red Army.

USSR had a goal, nessesary to survive. We offered a bargain. Then we forced Finns to accept the offer.

As the goal for Stalin was to incoperate the Finns into "USSR", it was a great defeat.
Indeed, I belive it was the greatest defeat in modern history.


Crabofix

[Boroda]

Miko, desperately declaring war is not a good expression... Having 80 divisions on the Western border of Germany and doing nothing until nazis attacked France is definetly not "desperate" action.

The problem is that Western nations were waiting for a war between Germany and USSR. If they wanted to stop Hitler - they should have finished 1938 Moscow negotiations fast and decisively. Instead they simply were playing for time. USSR had given them everything including strategic plans and mobilization conditions, just to get a complete and arrogant refusal.

About Kuusinen's "government" - they turned into a Karelo-Finnish SSR government... You remember there was a 16th Republic?

In 1956 the Karelo-Finnish SSR was renamed into a Karelian Autonomous Republic, because they discovered there are only two Finns there, one - Financial inspector and another - Finkelstein, both being the same person

[LLv34 Jarsci]

I disagree about those concentration camps. I admit that later during the war the POWs held in captivity were having hard time, and lots of them did die, but its because even the front line troops didnt have enough food. Regular families didnīt have flours to make bread , so they added some sawdust (or whats it in english..)

But there wasnīt racial problems here in Finland. Saam population lived on in Lapland. Among the best Sissi ( recon/partisan teams moving behind enemy lines , usually skiing)
 platoons were lots of Saam people, which knew the nothern ways of nature very well. Finland refused to send jews to Germany. Although later its been found out that there may be some single cases where people have been given to the Germans.

How you think that we could have been able to resist USSRīs attack if we had had lots of troops guarding some concentration camps, how our people could have been so united agains yours??

Even the people who were politically pro-communists were fighting against Russian troops, because they were defending our way of thinking and our land.

During Continuation war 41-44 Finland reclaimed areas which we lost during Winter War and following peace treaty, and then some. But Finland halted its attack and refused to aid Germany in attacking further in Russia. We just took what was ours (and some compensation of course..  heh ) Our intend was not to crusade against USSR, as Germany was doing.

Itīs funny thought that we keep arguing over some 60yrs+ old war where lots of people died and all participants who fought there try to forget that as hard as they can... why we try to justify old things and wrongdoings when we could try to make a better tomorrow and learn from old mistakes?

But it seems that human mind is not capable to live in peace and prosper, we need always some reason to kill and maim our neighbours..  And its also funny that 1% of population which is in charge is usually the most fanatic to wage war, and the rest 99% , who will suffer mostly, are following like sheeps..

Sheesh this stupidity.. wondering how we didnt kill ourselves right after we fell down from the tree...? and they call this evolution!

[Boroda]

Originally posted by crabofix
As the goal for Stalin was to incoperate the Finns into "USSR", it was a great defeat.
Indeed, I belive it was the greatest defeat in modern history.


Crabofix

Can you explain why Stalin agreed to end the war on the conditions offered before in started, incluing the Karelian territory several times bigger then Karelian Istðmus given to Finland?...

Also tell me what could save Finland from occupation after Mannerheim's line was broken? Soviet tanks moved on the ice of Finnish Gulf, and when the ice should melt - the whole Baltic Fleet could be sent to combat. It was a complete and obvious victory.

[miko2d]

Boroda: Miko, desperately declaring war is not a good expression... Having 80 divisions on the Western border of Germany and doing nothing until nazis attacked France is definetly not "desperate" action.

 They were no match for germans - in defence or in offence. They got destroyed. That kind of proves they started a war that was desperate. They might not have believed it to be so when they started - but their hesitation of going on offencive kind of indicates they did.
 They probably at first expected Brits to hit germans hard with heavy bombers and destroy their port cities with their mighty fleet and send plenty of troops and machinery but the brits were not that enthusiastic about the whole thing.

The problem is that Western nations were waiting for a war between Germany and USSR. If they wanted to stop Hitler - they should have finished 1938 Moscow negotiations fast and decisively.

 Alternatively - and actually, Stalin spent 15 years bringing Hitler to power and setting the Europe up for the next world war according to the communist doctrine - so that he could "liberate" the whole continental Europe with from Hitler instead of just half of it like he did when Hitler recognised his back-stabbing plan and attacked preemptively.
 The fact that Stalin publicly agreed that it was "possible to build socialism in one country" hext to prosperous fast-developing free societies does not mean that he really believed that and just said so to quiet their suspicions. He was a genius after all and had all the data, so impossibility of long-term coexistence of socialism and capitalism must have been obvious to him long before it became obvious to everybody.

 So stopping Hitler from taking on Europe was the least thing Stalin would have wanted. Hence he did not allow the 1938 negotiations to conclude the way brits wanted.

 miko

[Boroda]

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
I disagree about those concentration camps. I admit that later during the war the POWs held in captivity were having hard time, and lots of them did die, but its because even the front line troops didnt have enough food. Regular families didnīt have flours to make bread , so they added some sawdust (or whats it in english..)

But there wasnīt racial problems here in Finland. Saam population lived on in Lapland. Among the best Sissi ( recon/partisan teams moving behind enemy lines , usually skiing)
 platoons were lots of Saam people, which knew the nothern ways of nature very well. Finland refused to send jews to Germany. Although later its been found out that there may be some single cases where people have been given to the Germans.

How you think that we could have been able to resist USSRīs attack if we had had lots of troops guarding some concentration camps, how our people could have been so united agains yours??

Even the people who were politically pro-communists were fighting against Russian troops, because they were defending our way of thinking and our land.

During Continuation war 41-44 Finland reclaimed areas which we lost during Winter War and following peace treaty, and then some. But Finland halted its attack and refused to aid Germany in attacking further in Russia. We just took what was ours (and some compensation of course..  heh ) Our intend was not to crusade against USSR, as Germany was doing.

Jarsci, the concentration camps in Karelia in 1941-44 are a sad truth. Only in Petrozavodsk there were 5 (five) camps, with all the population except Saams and Finns held there.  I meant that Saams had to wear that "relative nationality" signs to get benefits together with Finns. Funny that you call Petrozavodsk "some compensation"... You should find some maps of that time. Some Finnish maps I saw on your historical sites look as if occupation of Karelia didn't happen at all...

I understand that it was not a "crusade" as nazis, and frankly speaking I was stunned when I read about all that racial crap I read it in translated Finnish sources.

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci

Itīs funny thought that we keep arguing over some 60yrs+ old war where lots of people died and all participants who fought there try to forget that as hard as they can... why we try to justify old things and wrongdoings when we could try to make a better tomorrow and learn from old mistakes?

But it seems that human mind is not capable to live in peace and prosper, we need always some reason to kill and maim our neighbours..  And its also funny that 1% of population which is in charge is usually the most fanatic to wage war, and the rest 99% , who will suffer mostly, are following like sheeps..

Sheesh this stupidity.. wondering how we didnt kill ourselves right after we fell down from the tree...? and they call this evolution!

Agreed completely.

The problem is that mr. Radio-Toad tries to bait me for not admitting my own personal responsibility for all the crap Western propaganda whistled into his years about evil Russians. Every country has some skeletons in a closet. Only a real Master-Baiter like Toad can use dirty tricks to show as if I am an enemy of the Finns.

[Boroda]

Miko, here is a beautiful book on the subject we discuss:

Leonard Mosley, "On Borrowed Time" (How WWII began)

It's not a Soviet source, and can't be called "pro-Soviet", but it was published in 1972 in Russian by Voenizdat, 50000 copies.

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Boroda
Can you explain why Stalin agreed to end the war on the conditions offered before in started, incluing the Karelian territory several times bigger then Karelian Istðmus given to Finland?...

Also tell me what could save Finland from occupation after Mannerheim's line was broken? Soviet tanks moved on the ice of Finnish Gulf, and when the ice should melt - the whole Baltic Fleet could be sent to combat. It was a complete and obvious victory.

I tell you Why Stalin ended his efforts, being so close to "win".

Stalin thought that the war against the Finns was gonna be over with pretty quick. He never dreamed about losing that many men and thoose hughe amounts of equiptment.
It would also have taken many men then he thought, to keep Finland occupied. (He lost the amount of troops that where suposed to handle this).

He didnt know what France and England where up to.
They could have decleared war on USSR as they did on Germany.

What he accomplished was his secondary goal.

But, you are saying that he kept a enemy alive, ready to aid Germany in a future attack, just because he could afford it, cause his goals where met?

[Makofan]

It is very simple

According to Boroda, the USSR wanted some of Finland .  Finland refused.  USSR invaded Finland's sovereignty to take it. That was a war of aggression.