The Russo-Finnish War

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#1

I was curious to know if anyone else knew about the conflict between Russia and Finland on 1939. Yeah, I know it seems odd, Russia fighting a smaller country. The Finns heavily outnumbered. But what I found odd is, that Finland managed to beat back Russia. Doing research, and reading up about it, I found out that Finland relied on making sure that there rifles ( Similar to the Russian Mosin-Nagant ) were accurate. Instead of mass producing them like Russia did. Causulties seemed very light on Finland, and heavy on Russia. I read up that Russia came in waves, literally. I guess the Finns just mowed them down with machine gun fire.

Russian causulties: 200,000

Findland causulties: 25,000

Much due to the Russians tactics. Another thing, I found that a Finnish Sniper, Simo Hayha ( can’t remember how to type his name ) got atleast 500 kills. Very interesting. I was wondering, who else know’s any more about the Russo-Finnish conflict?

#2

I dont know alot about the Russ - Finn war, But it seems that the soviets wanted to extend the hand of communism to their Finnish friends, who were a bit cool to the idea. One reason for the high losses on the part of the Russians, beyond basic tactical, and logistics considerations, was that the Finns had a large quantity of submachine guns available to them, and these weapons were very reliable, and used with telling effect. The Russians (I dont know this to be true, but its what I have read, ) had no submachine guns available to them, only the fairly clumsy bolt rifle they used.
The sub gun was designed by the same man who designed the Finn 20 mm. Anti-Tank rifle, a guy named Lahti ( I have an example of the 20 mm rifle in my collection). The submachine gun proved to be the undoing of the winter war attacks, and was in large part responsible for the Finn’s success in that war. I have seen and held the suomi sub gun, and seen pictures of its progenetors, and odd, but it looks much like the later ppsh sub guns developed by the Russians. - Raspenau -

#3

Apparently the poor performance of the Russians in their Finnish campaign was one of the events that lead Hitler and his staff to believe that Russia would be a “walk over”. It lead the Russians to see that their purges had weakened their officer corps and started to make changes.

A bizarre twist in the politics of the time was that Britain and France were on the verge of providing military assistance to the Fins when peace broke out. 18 months later the British were providing military assistance to the Russians themselves.

#4

Ah, I found it. In my thick book of 21st Century Guns of all sorts, I found a similar model of that Finnish Submachine gun. It was made before WW2, it’s Russian made and similar to the PPSH. So, the Russians did use machine Guns in the Russo-Finnish War.

And I also read up that a number of Russian causulties were caused from the cold. I guess they where a bit ill prepared for the war.

#5

Thats a pleasant surprise. I know that sub-machine guns were around since the teens, it would makes sense that the Russians had them, tho I dont know how many or if they were deployed for use in that war. I do know that the Finns had several thousand sub guns, and eagerly used them in that conflict. I have heard that the Russians were inclined to give some ammo to all the troops, but rifles to only half. Again, I cant swear to it, might be true, and might not. But it is a sure-fire way to loose a war. - Raspenau -

#6

Hello comrade Chukolov.:slight_smile:
Welcome to the forum.
I/m doubt the russian rifles were worst the the finnish. Or the russian exuipment were the worst.
Indeed the average russian infantry division was even better equipment then the finns.
Look at this http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Советско-финская_война_1939—1940_гг.

Оружие (wearpons) Финское (Finns)/Советское (Soviet)
Винтовок (firles) 11 000/ 14 000
Автоматов (avtomats) 250 /-
Ручных пулемётов (light mashinguns) 250/ 419
Пулемётов (7,62-мм) (mashingans) 116/ 200
Пулемётов (12,7-мм) ( mashingans) 0/ 6
Зенитных пулемётов
(четырёхствольных) (AAA guns) 0/32
Ручных гранатомётов Таубина
(Гранатомёт Таубина) (lgrenade discharger) 0/261
Миномётов (81-82-мм)(mortar) 18 /18
Миномётов (120-мм) (mortar) 0 /12
Орудий (37-45 -мм) (Gun) 30/ 48
Орудий (75- 90-мм) (Gun) 24 /38
Орудий (105- 152-мм) ( howitzer) 12 /40

Thue, the soviet soldiers had no automats but as you could see
the overal firepower of soviet division was a 1.5 times more.
And where did you find the figure of soviet causulties - 200 000?
As far as i know the total figures of soviet soldiers perished and lost - 126 875. This figures supported the russian and western historians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
The soviet problems of winter war 1940 was due to the bad command and the lack of combat experience of high officers.
Moreover the finns were fighting in its territory and very succesfully used the special feature of area relief.

Cheers.

#7

hi tankgeezer.
Well if you all guys here discuss the history of my country , let me add a bit…
Indeed the Soviet gov had no intentions to “extand the hand of communism to the Finland”.
The reason of winter war was pure progmatic( athough it sound cynically)
The aim of the soviet offensive to move the soviet-finish border far out from Leningrad. Coz this city was in the distance of the 32 km from the border.
In the future war with Germany this could be the very importaint factor for defence of Leningrad and strategic soviet port Murmansk ( that later had received the lend lise transports in the 1942-45). The soviets demands the 25km of depth finnish territories as an exchange for the a essential part of Karelia.
Finns refused it :" the two pieces of dirt for the one piece of gold".
The beginning of the war it were preceded a two years of hard negoration that nevertheless has come to the deadlock inthe 1939.
BTW inspite of the big blood the soviet has reached its aims .
The resault of this war war
[ul]
1.it moved aside boundary from Leningrad
2.were obtained Karelian isthmus, islands of Gulf of Finland, part of the coast of Arctic Ocean, took in the lease Hango peninsula; took under the control Ladoga lake;
3.secured Murmansk, which also previously was located near the Finnish territory (peninsula Rybachiy);
4.the experience of the breakthrough of permanent work and fight with the enemy, who uses the tactics of guerrilla warfare, obtained the experience of waging of war in the winter time, in the marshy and wooded territory.
[/ul]
I just have to add the soviet army good learned the lesson of winter fight wher the temperature wer extremaly low :–35,-45C

One reason for the high losses on the part of the Russians, beyond basic tactical, and logistics considerations, was that the Finns had a large quantity of submachine guns available to them, and these weapons were very reliable, and used with telling effect. The Russians (I dont know this to be true, but its what I have read, ) had no submachine guns available to them, only the fairly clumsy bolt rifle they used.

Indeed the finns submashine guns had a little influence at the soviet causulties.
According to the soviet memours the one of the worst problem were the finnish snipers (“kykyshka”).
The one of the biggest soviet mistake was the underestimating of the finnish fortified line so called “Mannergame line” wher the soviet troops faced the excellently builded the fortification line.And the first problem was the lack of the high-caliber artillery ( in the first period of war) for the damaging of this line.
Another importaint reason of the soviet casuilites were the mistakes of the soviet military planning for instance the soviet stuf planned the temperature about -10-15 C in the jenuary but indeed the temperature in desember wa about -30-40 C. Thus the manies of soviet soldiers were the frost-bitten.
BTW exactly this reason helped the soviet troops to save the Moscow only year later;)

The sub gun was designed by the same man who designed the Finn 20 mm. Anti-Tank rifle, a guy named Lahti ( I have an example of the 20 mm rifle in my collection).

20-mm anty-tank rifle :wink:
May i wath at the photo of this “rifle”

The submachine gun proved to be the undoing of the winter war attacks, and was in large part responsible for the Finn’s success in that war. I have seen and held the suomi sub gun, and seen pictures of its progenetors, and odd, but it looks much like the later ppsh sub guns developed by the Russians.

Well i heared the story thet the soviet PPSH was the simular of the finnish submashin gun “suomi” although the drum automato was not best.

#8

I like this forum because I can learn more about history than is written in books. At least those available to me. so thankyou very much for the information. The Lahti 20 mm. anti-tank rifle was built by Husqvarna, at least my example was, originally chambered a different cartrige, later it was re-chambered for the 20mm x 138mm Solothurn Cartridge. About 1,000 of these rifles were imported into the U.S. in the 60’s, and were sold through various firearm outlets including harware stores, selling for about $100.00 USD. Ammunition was sold for about $1.00 USD per round. some Criminals used one of these rifles in a robbery to stop the police cars from following, and after that, the remaining unsold guns were de-activated by drilling a hole up through the gas tube, and chamber. and welding a plug in place. they look the same but cannot be made to fire. The one I own is in working order, I found it in an antique store, and bought it. I took several months to get the paperwork through the Gov’t . I have fired it, and it is quite an experience heavy recoil, and a very loud BOOM! We had only a 60 mm steel plate, but it went through it quite cleanly. I was impressed! I have a picture of one, I will try to include here, The man is not me, but you can see the weapon well, and the size relative to a person.In the present times, this rifle would sell for about $6,000 USD, and the ammo about $50.00 per round for new manufactured, about $35.00USD for original 40’s Finn Ammo. The Germans also produced Ammo for this rifle, well, actually for captured Solothurn rifles, and it was very good ammo.

lahti.jpg

lahti-mag.jpg

#9

Yes, finally a site where I can discuss WW2 with others.

Now, back on topic. The causulties, I looked them up in a book, it might have been the total from the cold, wounded, and deaths. I’ll have to look that up agian. ; )

And as for the Finnish Rifles, I read that up on a site with a collection of information of weapons of all sorts. A part on the site had an interview of a Finnish Sniper; Simo Hahya ( Not sure how to type that one up ) as they talked more about him and his interview, they included some info on the Finnish Sniper. One of which was that the Finns relied on tunning there rifle’s up instead of mass producing it like the Russians did.

^ I’ll check up on more about that.

#10

To anyone who might be interested, there is a site dealing with the weapons, and some historical information of the Russ/Finn war. www.winterwar.com
I took a quick look, and it seems to have alot to offer. - Raspenau -

#11

Oh thank you very much dear tankgeezer for the photos:)
You have a nice hobby and WW2 anti-tank raritet in your collection for $6 000 is the best.
I just could to envy at you :slight_smile:
I can imagine the heavy recoil of this 20-mm BAZUKA.
And what tipes of ammo are avialible for this gun?
If its shell could penatrates the 60-mm steel plate it coudl be used agains the Pather at the sides armor and even agains Tiger at the rear.
Men you are cool;)

#12

Well Wiki links at the book of G.F. Krivosheev, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, 1997, ISBN 1-85367-280-7, Greenhill Books.
He was writing regards the soviet casualties
126,875 dead or missing
264,908 wounded
3,100 captured
But honestly speaking today the Krivisheevs work are unde the strong criticism from the other Russian historians.
So i would very glad to you for any other reliable infore.

#13

Hello Chevan, thanks for the kind compliments. The Lahti A.P. round was expected to penetrate about 60 mm of armor plate, tho I dont remember at what range.I guess that if one was very brave, and could get close enough, the thinner side and posterior armor of a panther or tiger might be breached,but I think you would need to make several hits to do any real damage. There were several different types of Ammo for it, and the Solothurn rifle, The Germans made about a dozen different rounds. Most of these were one type or other of armor piercing shot, but there were some explosive rounds as well. It has a strong shoving kind of recoil, and comes back about 100mm on the spring absorbers (the little cylinders just forward of the bi-pod mount.)
The plate I fired at was not armor, just what we call mild steel, nearly no carbon, and not hardened in any way. The Lahti can penetrate nearly 100mm of this soft material at 100-200 m I’ll post more later on this weapon, though you can read about it at the site I posted earlier. take care now, - Raspenau -

#14

Well, too bad that several soviet generals and politicians have testified that Stalin wanted to capture Finland, totally, completely.

==
Some historians have written that Stalin only wanted to move the Finnish border slightly away for the protection of Leningrad, and that Finland was being unnecessarily difficult with the “legitimate defense requirements” of the Soviet Union. This claim has been disproved. If there was ever any doubt that Stalin wanted all of Finland, rather than just a tiny part to protect Leningrad, let the following statement by Khrushchev stand as testimony. This was just after the infamous pact with Hitler. “He (Stalin) said then and there that the document we signed would give us Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia, and Finland.”
(pg. 46, Khrushchev Remembers, Jerrold L. Schecter, with Vyacheslav V. Luchkov)

Captured soviets also had notes that they should be careful not to advance to sweden after conquering finland :smiley:

_

#15

Hm, reading up on a few sites I found that the Finns used some artillary. Did they have any airforce at all?

#16

i/m strongly doubt that those soviet generals and politicans even knew the truly plans of the Stalin. BTW could you call their names?

Some historians have written that Stalin only wanted to move the Finnish border slightly away for the protection of Leningrad, and that Finland was being unnecessarily difficult with the “legitimate defense requirements” of the Soviet Union. This claim has been disproved.

Nothing was disproved indeed:) This point exists parallely the version in my previous post .
If the Stalin really wanted the “all” of Finland he could easy reach it in the 1944-45 when the Red Army’s offensive to the the Finland was stopped by the signed the treaty of peace.
Indeed , as it was proved by the history, the neitral Finland is much better then the “pro-soviet brothers” East Europe.

If there was ever any doubt that Stalin wanted all of Finland, rather than just a tiny part to protect Leningrad, let the following statement by Khrushchev stand as testimony. This was just after the infamous pact with Hitler. “He (Stalin) said then and there that the document we signed would give us Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia, and Finland.”
(pg. 46, Khrushchev Remembers, Jerrold L. Schecter, with Vyacheslav V. Luchkov)

May be Hitler and presented the Finland for the Stalin but who did you say the Britain and France were ready to it;)
In fact the Britain supplied the wearpons to the Finland and british expedition corp was ready for the moving to the Finland through Narvick.
I strongly doubt they did it for the Baltic states and Bessarabia
So the continiuos of compat action far deep into the Finland could lead the USSR with the inevitable war with Britain and France ( and as the resault the british bombings raids to the soviet oil field in the Kavkaz).

As we could see the Finland was not the simular to the other states and the stopping of soviet offencive was mostly due to the politic reasons, not war.
Certainly Stalin was not so silly to began the new war with Britain for the Finland.
Just remember about it;)

Captured soviets also had notes that they should be careful not to advance to sweden after conquering finland :smiley:

Well i/m not the surprised if the cuptured soviet POWs were ready to spread any fairy tells about the conquering of “entire” Finland.
Indeed i could admit the possibility of the initual planning of full scale soviet invasion into the Finland in the condition of quick collapse of Finland ( like poland did). In this case the Brtain should has no any legal international right for the war help the Finland. But i think the soviet command was not so naive to use this plan as the main.
Althoug they were enough naive toward the “weak” finns resistence;)

#17

Winter War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_war

You should watch The Winter war movie which is really good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78EOD6Nf2QE&mode=related&search=

And this documentary is quite good:
http://www.mastersworkmedia.com/fireandice/
http://www.wfyi.org/fireandice/

This is Russian documentary (Russian speech, Finnish subtitles):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WipJrWm1Qk

These sites are also good:
http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/
http://www.mil.fi/perustietoa/talvisota_eng/index.html
http://www.kevos4.com/

And dont forget The Continuation war 1941-1944:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

A mod for Battlefield 1942 game:
http://www.snowflakestudios.net/?id=finnwars
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=9660

#18

Oh my god, why not to name all the atoms in the universe.

This is like, god, basic knowledge that even wikipedia knows

“Josef Stalin had expected to conquer the whole country by the end of 1939, but Finnish resistance frustrated the Soviet forces, who outnumbered the Finns 4:1 in men, 100:1 in tanks and 30:1 in aircraft…”

and if Stalin was just moving border, why he set up the Puppet Government for Finland?

"The Terijoki Government, a Soviet puppet regime created in the occupied Finnish border town of Terijoki (now Zelenogorsk) on December 1, 1939, was also called the Finnish Democratic Republic. "

Read from soviet archives what Andrei Zhdanov, Boris Shaposhnikov, Alexander Vasilevsky etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc were doing and said and wrote about Winter War.

“The deeds of the Finns during the Winter War gave others an example of how a people must fight for its independence.”

  • Colonel General Dimitrij Volkogonov, February 1989

“The truth was on the side of the Finns when they heroically defended their freedom and their independence.”

  • Historian Boris Sokolov, December 1989

Even Boris Yeltsin admitted Winter War was aggressive attack by Soviets.

And didn’t Stalin do that too :smiley:

"Stalin admitted that “a people that had fought so valiantly for its independence deserves consideration”. "
http://www.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=28271

Stalin also admitted frankly other occupations:

"It was during talks in Moscow, on October 2, 1939, that Stalin told Vilhelms Munters, the Latvian foreign minister: “I tell you frankly, a division of spheres of interest has already taken place. As far as Germany is concerned we could occupy you.” "
http://www.answers.com/topic/occupation-of-latvia-1940-1945

If the Stalin really wanted the “all” of Finland he could easy reach it in the 1944-45 when the Red Army’s offensive to the the Finland was stopped by the signed the treaty of peace.

It was so “easy” that even the famous soviet break thru army corps was stopped in Ihantala and beat the hell out :-DDD

from Wikipedia:

During World War II, in the Continuation War, the Fourth Strategic Offensive was the general attack by the Soviet Union against the Finns at the Karelian Isthmus and in East Karelia. The result was a stalemate: even though the Soviets liberated East Karelia and captured Vyborg (Viipuri), they didn’t achieve the objective of Kymi River and the destruction of the Finnish army.
+
"But the offensive didn’t succeed in breaking the VKT-line and Salpaline, and it didn’t succeed in destroying the Finnish army. In fact, despite the losses suffered, the Finnish army was better equipped after the offensive than before, thanks to the German delivered material. "
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_strategic_offensive)

So, Finland signed peace at the moment when it’s army was strongest ever!

Well i/m not the surprised if the cuptured soviet POWs were ready to spread any fairy tells about the conquering of “entire” Finland.

These are documents from dead soviet soldiers.

“Their troops were issued with detailed written warnings not to cross into Sweden once they had reached Finland’s western border, and the 7. Army included a military band for the victory parade in Helsinki.”
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25937

or if that’s too finnish source:

“In the winter dawn of 30 November four Soviet Armies with 23 divisions - some 460,000 men with over 2,000 tanks - began advancing across the length of Finland’s 1,200 km long eastern border. Their objective was to occupy the entire territory of Finland by the end of the year, installing Moscow’s puppet ‘Terijoki Government’ in Helsinki, and establishing a new ‘Democratic Republic of Finland’. Their troops were issued with detailed written warnings not to cross into Sweden once they had reached Finland’s western border, and the 7. Army included a military band for the victory parade in Helsinki.”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSfinland.htm

If Stalin just wanted flowers, peace, candy, colourful umbrellas and happiness to the universe, why the hell did he invade all the baltic countries that signed a treaty with Soviet Union?

_

#19

Just without emotions alephh;)

and if Stalin was just moving border, why he set up the Puppet Government for Finland?

"The Terijoki Government, a Soviet puppet regime created in the occupied Finnish border town of Terijoki (now Zelenogorsk) on December 1, 1939, was also called the Finnish Democratic Republic. "

Sure the Terijoki Government from a finnish comminists was formed in Zelenogors purelly for the political purposes ( for the case if the Mannerheim gov will ran away from a country- as it was happend with polish gov in sept of 1939).
I tell you more - from the november of 1939 was formed the Finnish People Army from the native finns and Korelians of Laningrad’s military district.
In the febriary of 1940 this army had a 25 000 of soldiers who nevertheless were never used in the Winter war.
Coz it was purely political action for the political influence toward the Finnis population -nathing more. This is absolutly do not proves the Stalin wished the whole Finland.

Read from soviet archives what Andrei Zhdanov, Boris Shaposhnikov, Alexander Vasilevsky etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc were doing and said and wrote about Winter War.

Oh really
and what’s all those ets.ets … has wrote in his “archives”

“The deeds of the Finns during the Winter War gave others an example of how a people must fight for its independence.”

  • Colonel General Dimitrij Volkogonov, February 1989

“The truth was on the side of the Finns when they heroically defended their freedom and their independence.”

  • Historian Boris Sokolov, December 1989

Oh really Volkogonov and Sokolov that has a “glory of objective historians” simular like David Irving in the West?
Alephh, i do not wish to underesimate the will and ability of the finnish people for the resistens , but you naivety bother me;)

Even Boris Yeltsin admitted Winter War was aggressive attack by Soviets.

Yea always drunk Yeltsys was ready to say any bulshit in attempt to present itself like a “first russian democrat” in the west.
He was ready to spread everything in this way.

And didn’t Stalin do that too
Stalin also admitted frankly other occupations:

"It was during talks in Moscow, on October 2, 1939, that Stalin told Vilhelms Munters, the Latvian foreign minister: “I tell you frankly, a division of spheres of interest has already taken place. As far as Germany is concerned we could occupy you.” "
http://www.answers.com/topic/occupation-of-latvia-1940-1945

Do not confuse the Baltick states and Finland ( who had a war gauranties from a Britain).

It was so “easy” that even the famous soviet break thru army corps was stopped in Ihantala and beat the hell out :-DDD

Oh really it was beat the hell out?:wink:
It seems you nothing know about Moscow , Stalingrad , Kiev and Berlin battes if you naively think in the Finland it was a hell;)

from Wikipedia:

So, Finland signed peace at the moment when it’s army was strongest ever!

…but without any perspectives for the further success defence…
Indeed the fate of Finland was desided in Teheran confirense of allies in 1943.
That’s wthat wrote the Winston Churchill in his memours “The Second worl war”

Then the President asked Stalin, was he agreeable to discuss a question about Finland.
Can the government of the United States make anything, so that you soak to derive Finland from the war?
Stalin said that recently the Swedish Deputy foreign Minister stated Kollataj (Soviet ambassador) that Finns fear the intention from the side of Russia to convert Finland into the Russian province. Soviet government answered, that it does not have any intention to convert Finland into the Russian province, if only Finns will not force it this to make. By Kollataj it was then given indication say to Finns that the Soviet government not will object to the arrival into Moscow of Finnish delegation. However, it desires so that Finns would express their views relative to withdrawal from the war.
Here, in Teheran, it recently obtained the content of the Finnish answer, which was to it transmitted through Bogemana.
In this answer nothing it is discussed the desire of Finland to break with Germany. In it is raised the question about the boundaries. Finns propose as the basis for the consideration the boundary of 1939 with some corrections in favor of the Soviet Union. Stalin considered that Finns do not strive properly for serious negotiations. Their conditions are unacceptable, and to Finns this is well known. Finns still hope for the victory of Germany, and, at least, some of them solidly believe that the Germans will gain victory.
Roosevelt asked, does have sense so that the government of the United States would advise to Finns to go into Moscow. Stalin answered, that they were ready to go into Moscow, but this trip will be useless, if they go there with their present program.
I said that in the days of the first Russian- Finnish war I sympathized Finland, but after it entered the war against the Soviet Union, i was against Finland. Russia must attain safety of Leningrad and approaches to it. The position of the Soviet Union as sea and air power in the Baltic region must be provide ford. However, the people of the United Kingdom would be distressed, if Finns were included in the composition of the Soviet Union against their will. Therefore I was glad hear that the fact that marshal Stalin said.
i don’t think it would be useful to require contribution. Finns can fell certain quantity of trees, but hardly this will give anything. Stalin said that to it were not necessary money, but Finns during, let us say, five or eight years completely we could compensate the reason of Russia damage, supplying with its paper, by wood and by many other things. It considers that to Finns must be taught the lesson, and it decided to obtain compensation. I said that, as to me is presented, the damage, which caused Finns, after attacking in Russia and after completing, thus, unworthy and absurd act, considerably exceeds the fact that this poor country, as Finland, can place. I added that "in my ears still sounds the famous slogan: “no annexations and contributions”.
It can be, it will not be pleased to marshal Stalin, that I speak this “.
Stalin with the wide smile answered: however, I said to you that I become conservative”.
Then I asked, what he wants. Approaches “overlord”. It would like me to the spring Sweden to enter the war on our side, and Finland left the war. Stalin said that this it would be a good thing.
Then conversation passed to the territorial details: Vyborg (“about Vyborg something and to speak”, said Stalin); Karelian isthmus; Hango. “if the concession to Hango causes difficulties, said Stalin, I was ready to take instead of Petsamo”. “valid exchange”, noted Roosevelt.
I said that the Englishmen want, in the first place, so that Russia would be contented by its boundaries and, in the second place, so that Finns would be free and independent and would live how they will know how, in these very inconvenient regions. But we do not want to render any pressure in Russia. Stalin said that, if it went to that, allies can if they want, from time to time to press on each other. But let Finns live, as they want. Everything will be in the order, if they compensate half of the damage caused by them.

Roosevelt stated that the present Finnish leaders were disposed pro-German. You be other there leaders, we could attain something. In the opinion of Stalin, it would be better to have other leaders, but it does not object even to Ryuti. Let anybody arrive, at least itself of features. It does not fear chertey. I expressed hope that marshal Stalin will approach a question about Finland with due regard for the possibility of the entrance of Sweden into the war during our general offensive during May. [b]Stalin agreed, but he said that it cannot forego several conditions:

  1. the restoration of the agreement of 1940.
  2. Hango or Petsamo (here it added that Hango it was given To the Soviet Union into the lease, but that he will propose to take Petsamo).
  3. compensation by nature to 50 percent of the caused damage. A question about quantities it will be possible to discuss late.
  4. break with Germany.
  5. the dispatch of all Germans.
  6. demobilization.
    About the compensation I answered, that damage to cause easily, but vozmer. quantities it will be possible to discuss late. [/b]

So as we could see

  1. the Stalin has no intentions to invide the whole Finland indeed.
  2. Any way the allies did not let him to cupture the Finland.
  3. The finns have admited all the conditions ( except of the compensation) that were declared by the allies all together.
  4. The finns “succesfull resistence” in the 1944 HAD NO relation to the independent Finland indeed.
    The nobody wish to capture the Finland at that time.
    IF Stalin REALLY was wanted to capture the Finland he was never stopped by the befor the possible high-rate casualties ( like as he did not fear in Poland , Hungury , Germay and Chehoslovakia to sucrifice the lives over 1.2 million of soviet soldiers.)
    In this perspective the casualties of of Red Army in the Winter War is just a tiny parody of the really hell in Germany and Poland.
    Here was a pure pragmatism - as it was proved by the history - the neutral Finland is much better then the Soviets Finald.
#20

Reaaly if it was a documents from a dead soviet soldiers;)
I’m strongly doubt it.
Look for the zone of combat actions

The Red area is the combat zones ( the zone that was in plans of soviet command)- as could you see the Sweden border too far .
So i do not think the soviet soldiers had a note not to violate the Sweden border simply coz it was FAR OUT OF OPERATIVE DISTANCE OF soviet troops.