You are so wrong. Those are Finland´s cession of territory after the winter war.
You really should watch this Russian documentary (ten parts) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WipJrWm1Qk
Oh sorry Jeps you right;)
This is the territories that get the USSR after the Winter War.
The areas of combat actions was EVEN LESS.
I think the accidental meeting wiht the Sweden or Norway could be only in the North of Finland near the Rybachij Penisula and Petsamo.
But this is absolutl does not prove the point of alephh that Stalin wanted “whole the Finland”
Combat zone was the whole east border of Finland and it was so far from border of Sweden because Finns stopped the attack of Russians.
True, the first attack in 30 hovember of 1939 was along whole the finish border - this was a soviet operative plan-paralyse the finnish troops and do not let them to use the reserves for the Mannerheim line in Karelia.
But you wrong about Sweden border - the operative zone of the 14-soviet army was relatively near the Sweden and Norway.
Vassili Chukolov
Russian causulties: 200,000
Findland causulties: 25,000
даю цифры по достоточно свежим финским источникам - и практически официальным
(по материалам книги “85 лет независимой Финляндии”, Weilin+Göös OY, 2002)
USSR losses:
KIA and POW: 84 994
WIA: 186 584
ill: 51 982
Frost bite: 9 614
Total: 333 084
Finnish losses:
KIA: 21 396
MIA: 1 434
WIA: 43 557
Total (app.): 66 400
POW:
finns- app. 1100
soviet - app. 6000
Oh thanks Egorka.
This is a new Finnish figures of casulties according the book" 85 years of independent Finland" Weilin+Göös OY, 2002.
So the Red Army lost 85 000 of killed and POWs - even less then the wiki gives.
But the fidure of ill and wounded is even greater.
Chevan,
I took the info from this blog: http://community.livejournal.com/warhistory/915529.html?view=12894281#t12894281
As I understand this is an “official” newest finnish data on the matter.
The interesting thing though is that the SDoviet casualties (the enemy casualties for Finns) are given exact - up to the last digit, wheras the Finn’s casualties are given apporoximately. I wonder why.
[INDENT]REPORT ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT
Delivered by Comrade V.M. Molotov, Chairman of Council of People’s Commissars and People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, at Sitting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on March 29, 1940
“The war in Finland has exacted heavy sacrifices both from us and from the Finns. According to estimates of our General Staff, on our side the number of killed and those who died from wounds was 48,745, i.e., slightly less than 49,000, and the number of wounded, 158,863. Attempts are being made on the Finnish side to minimize their losses, but their casualties were considerably bigger than ours. According to the minimum estimates of our General Staff, the number of Finnish killed is not less than 60,000, not counting those who died from wounds, and the number of wounded is not less than 250,000. Thus, proceeding from the fact that the Finnish army numbered not less than 600,000 men, it must be recognized that the Finnish army lost more than half its strength in killed or wounded.
Such are the facts.”[/INDENT]
This is quite amazing source mate, thanks
Attempts have been to justify these hostile acts toward our foreign trade on the grounds that by trading with Germany, we are helping her in the war against England and France. It does not take much to see that these arguments are not worth a brass farthing. One has only to compare the USSR, say, with Rumania. It is known that trade with Germany makes up half of Rumania’s total foreign trade and that, moreover, the share of Rumania’s national production in her exports to Germany of such basic commodities as oil products and grain, for example, far exceeds the share of the national production of the USSR in our exports to Germany. Nevertheless, the Governments of Great Britain and France do not resort to hostile acts toward Rumania and do not think it possible to demand that Rumania cease trading with Germany. Quite different is their attitude toward the Soviet Union. Hence, the hostile acts of England and France toward the Soviet Union are to be explained, not by the fact that the USSR is trading with Germany, but by the fact the plans of the British and French ruling circles to utilize our country in the war against Germany have been frustrated and, as a result, they are pursuing a policy of revenge toward the Soviet Union.
Is it true that both Britain and France closed eyes toward the Nazy-Romainia close trade colloboration tll the 1941?
I thought the Romania was a friend ofthe France ( at least out frend Dani proved this)
Thus, proceeding from the fact that the Finnish army numbered not less than 600,000 men…
Well i/m doubt the finnish army was not less then 600 000. Wiki gives the figures is 250 000.
But…
Wiki gives also the 130 finns airpcrafts according the finnish sources - that is the obvious false - coz we know for sure that:
Speaking in the Commons on March 19, Chamberlain, the British Premier,…made public a list of war materials that had been promised and dispatched to Finland: 152 airplanes were promised, 101 were sent; 223 guns were promised, 114 were sent; 297,000 shells were promised, 185,000 were sent; 100 Vickers guns were promised, 100 were sent; 20,700 aircraft bombs were promised, 15,700 sent; 20,000 anti-tank mines were promised, 10,000 were sent, and so on.
////////////
As for France, from the French press that she dispatched to Finland 179 airplanes, 472 guns, 795,000 shells, 5,100 machine guns, 200,000 hand grenades etc
//////////
Mention should also be made of Sweden’s part in the Finnish war. From reports printed in all the Swedish newspapers, during the war against the Soviet Union Sweden supplied Finland “a certain quantity of aircraft roughly equal to one-fifth of Sweden’s total air force at that time.” The Swedish War Minister stated that the Finns had received from Sweden 84,000 rifles, 575 machine guns, over 300 pieces of artillery, 300,000 grenades, 50,000,000 cartridges. All this material, as the minister declared, was of the very latest design.
///////////
Nor was Italy behindhand in her efforts to fan the war in Finland. She, for example, dispatched 50 military planes to Finland.
///////////
According to incomplete information at our disposal, the total munitions of all kinds sent to Finland by other countries only during the war amounted to no less than 350 airplanes, about 1,500 guns, over 6,000 machine guns, about 100,000 rifles, 650,000 hand grenades, 2,500,000 shells, 160,000,000 cartridges, and much else.
Thus as could wee see the finnish source decreased its airforces at tleast several times.
I mean we have the contradaction theofficial finns figures with Western.
This fact forces us to conclude the fiinish side try to decrease its power in Winter war.( in examples of airforces). Or at least they hidden the scale of war help for the Finland from the western states
Cheers.
Quite a discussion you guys have here. ; )
Recently going to a gun and knife show, I was on the look out for Finnish Rifle. I found five, all of them were a little over 200 dollars. They were in pretty good shape to. When I picked on up, and looked at it, one of the gun owners told me alot about the finnish rifle used in the winter war. The strap, for the finnish rifle, the positions for the strap for the rifle was so that it would be easy for ski troops to ski in. Basically, the finns tuned the rifle up, the trigger, much easier to pull without any resistance.
When ever I fire my Mosin Nagant, I notice theres some slight resistence pulling the trigger. For the Finns rifle, the barrel was heavier, accuracy and what not. Possible thats another reason why the Finns beat the Russians so badly. Better rifles.
I ve read that most of the russian casualties were given by the excesive leadership of the “comissars” and little rely in the actual military men.
Not sure if that is correct, here a docu I ve found about this war.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/fire-and-ice-the-winter-war-of-finland-and-russia/4258284439
Not sure that commisars even were widely used in Red Army in that period:)
The so great casualties was in fact resault of soviet hight command mistakes: both in planning of compain and in tactic of realisation.
For instance the very great problem was a 30-40 C Frost( the soviets planned no more 10-15 C).
Uhum…nice picture Aleph, but…what is the relation of that with the topic ? :roll:
I am waiting for your answer.
Not sure that commisars even were widely used in Red Army in that period
Well, that is the thing people keep telling me, the comissars had a lot of ower in the military operations.
I re-post the documentry because the earlier link is dead.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=WrsH4K7HKtg
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kh40rulmMVo
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=AiXCzsIpwJA
Ok, since my recomendation has been completery ignored this will remain locked until I decided what to do.:rolleyes:
Thread reopened, off topic post deleted, keep it inline with the Russo-finnish war, nothing else please.
Thanks.
Isn’t the answer simple?
The Russian Army was backward and antiquated. Stalin purged any open minded/thinking commander. We’re not exactly talking any great strategy here are we? I don’t want to take anything away from the incredible fight the Finnish army put up, but it was the Russians.
This is the same Russian army that the Whermacht encircled 200,000 to 500,000 at a time in June/Aug '41.
This is wrong Sickles.
Indeed the Red Army was enought effective and strong to beat the Japane Kwantung Army in the 1938-39 in the Far East.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol
For the compare: the UK/US initially fully losed the battles agains Japanes in the 1941-42.
So the power of Red Amry was very good in comparition with ANY Alliy armies.And even could not be compared with French army ability to fight:)
Moreover the newest soviet wearpon like the T-34 and Mig-3 was even better than Germans ones.
However the lack of the WIDE COMBAT experience in the 1941 was the resault of soviets great loses for the first stage of the war.
The soviet strong casualties during Finnish-soviet war was a direct resault of the frost and lack of soviet command ability to manage the such great quantity of troops.
BTW as it was porved EVEN THE Greatest Strongest German Army in that period HAD NO experience in such winter battles.
When they has come closely to the Moscow in the end of 1941 - they could did nothing when the frost has reached the -40 degrees.The engeens of tanks did not start, wearpons bolt was frozen.
So would you want to say that the Germans army was “backward and antiquated”?
Hello.
I became provoked by this thread which I stumbeled upon, and have to jump in, as Finnish Defence Force in WW2 is something I know a lot about.
And Russians with polite tone is a rarity in the net.
Well i/m doubt the finnish army was not less then 600 000. Wiki gives the figures is 250 000.
But…
Wiki gives also the 130 finns airpcrafts according the finnish sources - that is the obvious false - coz we know for sure that:
Finnish divisions had a number 12 500 men within them, meaning that they were smaller in size than Soviet ones.
We had very little in terms of military hardware, and what we had was obsolete. But we knew how to use them.
Finnish casualties are well documented and in every possible turn, fallen trooper was taken from the front and buried in home-cemetary. After the war, a book was published, which contained ALL lost in Winter War. In Finland, there is not Soviet-fashion of twisting facts and numbers.
FAF(Finnish Air Force) was a mesh of dozens of planes, all which were obsolete, or near it. The number 130 means Aircraft suitable for Combat operations, the larger is the entire air fleet.
Thus as could wee see the finnish source decreased its airforces at tleast several times.
I mean we have the contradaction theofficial finns figures with Western.
This fact forces us to conclude the fiinish side try to decrease its power in Winter war.( in examples of airforces). Or at least they hidden the scale of war help for the Finland from the western states
Cheers.
We got no help from the West, this is purely Soviet fabrication. Lots of sympathy, no help.
Britain sent 12 Hurricanes, but they arrived after the war and we had next to no means to keep them operational, plus FAF regarded Hurricane MK1 as poor performer and a clumbsy Fireball.
Soviets kept their exact deathtoll as a secret, and we here know just what Soviet truth is. (I say this mening no offence at all, and from the heart; Finns take pride in telling the truth. We think that mans word is his honour. Thus, you can usually trust soldiers and Airmen telling the truth.)
-After collapse of the Soviet Union, Finns gained access to some archives: It turned out that During WW2, Finns claimed shooting down 1807 Soviet aircraft and Soviets themselves have the number 1844. That is very close, and shows nicley our honesty.)
Ask away; I know tons about this. And Yse, I must likely will post more on this subject.
Curiosities of Winter War:
¤Cuckoo-Snipers; Soviets were, and ARE convinced that Finnish Marksmen(not Snipers) were hidden in the trees. On many occation, Soviet artillery fused their charges to detonate in the foliage to kill finnish hidden “snipers”.
-In reality, Finnish Marksmen never used trees as platforms. Show me a fellow who sits(or climbes) our pinetrees and is able to gain a foothold there, and I’ll show you a frozen piece of a fool tied to a tree.
There is no means of escape if you are stupid enough to climb a tree, weather will affect you and you are exposed.
¤Mannerheim-line. Was fabricated as magnificent as Maginot line, and some Soviets even as late as in the 80’s told visitors of Karelian battlegrounds that “Here used to run the Great Mannerheim-Kirke line.” Brave Soviet troops stormed it and were able to break modern, well made fortification."
In harsh reality, concrete bunkers were few and afar. Fortifications(all and entire) had roughly the same amount of concrete as Helsinki Opera-House.
Mannerheim-line was mainly built using reservists who were willing to use their summer vacation working there and used terrain as an advantage. As artillery was in very short supply with even less ammo, weapons were Machine Guns.
There were no deep multi-floored bunkers, no rubber covered bunkers and no deflector plates.
¤Molotov Cocktail. Finnish invention. It was industrially made incendiary charge which Finnish close Anti-tankmen used to stop Soviet tanks as we really had no other means to stop them. Also, birch-logs were used. Threw them on the roads, and one of dozen had a dynamite-core. After a while Soviet tanks would have to halt should they see logs on a road.
Chevan,
Blaming the frost for the Soviets getting their asses kicked by the Finn’s is the funniest thing I ever heard! The Finns were toasty warm and the russians freezing!!
Doesn’t that make my point about Soviet strategy/planning as being antiquated? (They didn’y anticipate cold?..In Finland?)
What strategy was there? Like i said, Stalin Purged any competent commander long before the invasion of Finland.
Saying the Russians weren’t antiquated because they had the T34 is false also, I believe Stalin had the original designer killed also. They didn’t even know how to use it until 1943.
The russians were a backwards army during the Finnish invasion as well as throughout the entire war. They didn’t beat the Germans by a 'brilliant" strategy. They beat them with “Ham fisted” all ahead mentality that sacrificed millions of Russians un-necessarily.