In your opinion, was USSR a German ally in the period 1939 - 1941?
Becouse many people say they were…
Kruschev also made impressions that he was not involved in the purges…
So…is a reliable source or a filty liar ?
He is a reliably filthy liar. 
You see he is a human being. And being such he wanted to have his ass covered. So he rightfully condemned Stalins cult BUT at the same time he did everything to make sure that only Stlain, Beria and few others get blamed for that. Mr.Nikita as well as many others was involved big time himself.
1.000.000 … As I know it is not right number… by 2 times or so…
Thanks, if mathematics doesnt failed me that make about 500.000 casualties in the finnish front.
That is the most upper estimate.
The data that I have is the following:
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
source: “Finland. 85 years of independance”, Weilin+Göös OY, 2002.
…and Khrushev was sure that in the 1980 the Communism would build in USSR:)
I/m strongly doubt he even told it:)
Could you please provide the source where the Khrushves speak about 1 mln?
These two had a packt not to attack eachothers and to have speheres of influence, to divide certain nations between themselves. USSR got Eastern Poland, Latvia, Liettua, Estonia and Finland while Germans got Western Poland.
Germans gave no help to Finland because of the deal, and the deal dictated that Finland was to go to the USSR.
Allies? hmm, no. Both knew fully well that a huge war was coming, soon, and both needed time to prepare and outfit their armies.
Though Germans and Soviets did work together in some cases, for example in the tank developement.
Soviets had a plan to invade, it was the Groza. But I have failed to find many sources about it in a haste search. One in finnish…
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/juhani.putkinen/Suurhyokkayssuunnitelma_Groza.htm
Ah, quite many, it seems. Just search in “operation groza”, with your languages.
Finnish often think(at least many historians) that he could mean the entire length of the two wars.
This is strange that you failed to find anything about that.
Coz this was never existed.
The soviet plans of possible attack was just a product of ill imaginatio “historians” like Suvorov/Resun ( or like D.Irving in the west)
This was not in interess of Stalin to attack the Agermny in the 1941- in this case the Hitler could get the convenient reason of the “all -european crusade to the East”,
Stalin even ordered keep troops out of any possible provocation in Soviet-German border.
Amm, I did edit the previous post stating that yes, there is information available even in the net about it. Do you know historian Mihail Meltjuhov, because I don’t. I’d like to know what this fellow said about the plan.
[as a sidenote, this Soviet invasion has been a topic of conversation among historians, mainly because of the ease which Barbarosa broke through Soviet defences. People wonder weather the Red Army was in offensive positions, and not in defensive, which would explain the catastrophic results in the early stages of the German invasion.]
That was only before 1933.
I/m strongly doubt he even told it
Could you please provide the source where the Khrushves speak about 1 mln?
The source is the Kruschev memoirs, I dont have the book so I cant tell in wich page but is one recurrently quoted in almost every documentry I had seen about the winter war.
The problem of Soviet archives was the Soviet historians who always was under political pressure of the ComParty.So they often “made figures up” according current line of Party:)
But today the situation has absolutly changed. Besides the lot of documents were declassified recently for study/.
So i have to notice - ther contemporary russian historians get the figures rather different from the soviet ones
I dunno, that is why asked weather that rumour was true.
This was never true.
But the fact that you could think in this way - prove that you even have not read the one russian source.
Coz the russian authors constantly use the new documents
Hold on…
[i]In whole, FAF claimed 190 confirmed kills, 143 bombers, 37 fighters and 10 reconnaissance planes, and nearly 100 probable.The Finnish plane losses were 62 destroyed (including 11 FR, 17 GL, 7 FK, 5 RI and 12 BL) and 35 planes damaged.
From the losses, 47 were downed by the Soviet forces. The Soviet fighters shot down 35 planes, the Soviet AA-fire 8 planes and 4 for unknown reasons (the figures include the losses suffered by the Swedish voluntary unit and the planes lost while in transit to Finland)[/i]
Very well. So as we could see the Rusian arcives give 327 aircrafts losed from action of finnish aviation pretty well correspond with the Finnish data -290 .
So i think we could trust for russian datas enough.
Utter false. This matter has been adressed around the net, and every time Finns have shown that no, we did not close the siege.
Didn’t I post links to similar claims from Russians? Did you skimmed it through?
-And should you keep claiming that, consider this;
after Winter War, the Defences from Soviet side in the Isthmus were even more re-inforced. The battlements were deep and strong, and would have required the combined strength of the entire Finnish field army to punch through, and with extremenly heavy losses.
That’s right the Finns never moved further old Soviet bother. i.e. they not attcked the Leniingrad.
However the has took back the South-Eastern Karelia lands, thus the Leningrad was cut off from the Any other supplyes lines except the Ladoga lake.
So this was a natural blocade, that finns pretty well support till the 1944, provide the airfields and ports for gernabs as it was mentioned above.
From pure military poin you could be right , the finnish troops did not closed the siege - but the fully cut off the possible line of supplies of Leningrad from North (via the Karellia).
So it was pretty clear blocade, whatever the finnis guys in forum try to prove for themself.
Look at map of the winter 1941
Finns completelly cutt off the line of supplies Leningrad fromt the North.SO it was pretty good siege.
Amm, Stalin violated every condition which he saw fit. Why was this any different? And could you give a link on that , I’d like to read about it aswell.
Oh yo did not read the Winston Churchill “Second World War”;)?
Very sad fact. this is the first book in list " must to read". Becouse there a lot of documants and most importaint the decisions of British gov during the war.
You could find out it in english easy in net.
And Stalin said that he was in no hurry to reach Berlin?
Yes in the 1944 he actually was far from hurry for Berlin( and Churchil described why in his memours)
HE was aimed at the Balcans at that time.
Allied in the West sprung into a hurry when they realized what the Red Army was doing. Stalin had two generals run a race to reach Berlin. Already then it was apparent that there was little alliance between West and the East.
You have missed my point here.
I told you about Chehoslovakia - the Stalin finally cuptured it already aftert ehdownfall of BErline becouse the Chehoslovakia has been puted into the Soviet Zone of influence ( as it was agreed in the Allies conference).
So the fate of FInland was solved independently of any “hurry for Berlin” ( that has took place actually in the last months of war). It was decision of the Conference of Allies in Tehrain in 1943.
Winston Churchill described this also in its memours.
The both Allies UK/US was aimed to prevent Stalin from “liberation” of Finland- this saved the Finland finally.
We simply disagree here.
How is that Stalin did as Western Allied demanded by launching an immence assault against us?
And how the Stalin launch the assault of Romania when it was still Nazy ally in august 1944?
Only after thatt his this moment ( the attack) the Romanians were not ready to leave the NAzy and join the Allies side still.
Assault of Finland was for to take back the lands ( firstly ) and press the finnish authorities finally to leave the alliance with Nazy Germany too.( that was later has reached succesfully)
Do not forget the GErmany was aimed to prevent the possible capitulation the Finland- they planned even the occupation. So Finns did not even hear about negotiations of peace till the most end (when th Red Army has began the assault)
I/ve read the Miltjuhov’s " Lost chance of Stalin" couple years ago.
He repeat the main idea of Resun - the Stlin planned to attck the Germany first in sumer 1941.
I have to say that his verition of history is very interesting- for instance he seriously justify the STalin - Meltjiuhov was sure that the Stalin had no other choice as to attack first.
However his work are under serious criticism from other historians today.
Firstly still ws no found a single direct document in archives that confirm this plans. Secondary the Stalin was not so lunatic idiot to send the weak Rad Army (as it was demontrated in Winter war) against the most strong Army in Europe.
And Third - political. Hitler should be very glad if Stalin attacked first - this fact could give him very convenient justification for his conquering Eastern Company.
Besides being Agressor the USSR could not be sure for supportion of USA and Britain.
If Stalin attacked the HGermany - the USSR would inevitably ALON agains tha whole world coalition of states.
The plans of Soviet attack could be SUCCESFULL if the France and Britain involved the Germany into the hard long compain in the Western Front. In this way the Soviets had a great Chances for success.
However the France losed for 6 weeks and britain also did almost nothing. So the EGrman army was already relatively unoccupied in the beginning 1941 ( Grees and Balcans is not a matter) and could beat the Red Amry even if the Stalin attack first.
So from any aspect - the Stalins attack of GErmany in Summer 1941 after downfall of France (and any power in Western Europe that could resist for GErmans were complitely wiped out)- would be the pure suicide for USSR.
So Hitler had enough great force to reflect the any soviet attack and them finally beat the USSR using the World oppinions support ( mainly American).At least no one will support the Soviet Agressors by lend lise.
Thus from any point - military ( the Red Army has demonstrated its weakness and serious lack of experience during the Winter compain) and political ( the NEw World Anti-Soviet Crusade should be guaranted) - the Stalin could not attack first.
Whatever try to invent the “historians” in race for cheap popularity:)
This is an excellent discussion. I just want to commend you guys for keeping things above board and nice…
I think it’s exellent, should the old archives remain in open format, not least because we Finns usually don’t/didn’t trust anything Soviets stated.
This was never true.
But the fact that you could think in this way - prove that you even have not read the one russian source.
Coz the russian authors constantly use the new documents
Mainly because of the scarse availability of Russian sources. Also, I was not sure weather the true figures survived the Soviet re-writing.
Very well. So as we could see the Rusian arcives give 327 aircrafts losed from action of finnish aviation pretty well correspond with the Finnish data -290 .
So i think we could trust for russian datas enough.
Agreed. What do you think is the reason for such a large difference? I imagined that many bombers which slipped from the fighters came down after they had reached friendly territory.
That’s right the Finns never moved further old Soviet bother. i.e. they not attcked the Leniingrad.
However the has took back the South-Eastern Karelia lands, thus the Leningrad was cut off from the Any other supplyes lines except the Ladoga lake.
In the Isthmus, Finns took back their own, in other areas High command attempted to gain the lakes.
-Some are loud about `Grand Finland´ idea, but not too many know that it’s actually Estonian invention, and meant that if Estonia and Finns would have forged an alliance, they would have been able to blockade the entire Red Navy in the Blatics.
Those in the officers who actually wanted the keep the Eastern Karelia for good were kinda rare. Most had no illusions about the matter. This is first hand information, from my Grandfather. He lived through those times starting as a lieutanent and ended as a captain. Being part of the wealthier social class, he had good connections and lots of information.
So this was a natural blocade, that finns pretty well support till the 1944, provide the airfields and ports for gernabs as it was mentioned above.
From pure military poin you could be right , the finnish troops did not closed the siege - but the fully cut off the possible line of supplies of Leningrad from North (via the Karellia).
So it was pretty clear blocade, whatever the finnis guys in forum try to prove for themself.
Look at map of the winter 1941
Finns completelly cutt off the line of supplies Leningrad fromt the North.SO it was pretty good siege.
North was ours to begin with.
Germans were allowed to use our areas, but you must understand that they provided us with vital grain. There really were no one else to trade with.
Once the railway to assist Leningrad was completed, Finnish Long Distance Patrols rarely if ever sapped that line.(you do know about those grim fellows?) Again, Mannerheim himself put his authority to the play and gave spesific orders not to hit the line. Also, Finns did not distrups the Laatokka/Ladoga lifeline.
Oh yo did not read the Winston Churchill “Second World War”;)?
Very sad fact. this is the first book in list " must to read". Becouse there a lot of documants and most importaint the decisions of British gov during the war.
You could find out it in english easy in net.
Have to dig it up, I’m sure it’s in the town Library also. Reading it in english is not a problem.
Yes in the 1944 he actually was far from hurry for Berlin( and Churchil described why in his memours)
HE was aimed at the Balcans at that time.
To secure `Communistic´(totalitaristic) rule of SU. Sad.
You have missed my point here.
I told you about Chehoslovakia - the Stalin finally cuptured it already aftert ehdownfall of BErline becouse the Chehoslovakia has been puted into the Soviet Zone of influence ( as it was agreed in the Allies conference).
So the fate of FInland was solved independently of any “hurry for Berlin” ( that has took place actually in the last months of war). It was decision of the Conference of Allies in Tehrain in 1943.
Winston Churchill described this also in its memours.
The both Allies UK/US was aimed to prevent Stalin from “liberation” of Finland- this saved the Finland finally.
U.S. refused to declare war against us, because they had a stance that fighting dictators does not include war against constitutional republic.
-I understand what you mean, but my stance is that those three armies thrown against us had a task to break and take us. At the very least to break us from war, and in that they succeeded.
-Factors were highly succesful Finnish Assault Guns http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/sturmireferencebg_1.html, Extremenly accurate artilley, Finnish radio intelligence and German Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey.
And how the Stalin launch the assault of Romania when it was still Nazy ally in august 1944?
Only after thatt his this moment ( the attack) the Romanians were not ready to leave the NAzy and join the Allies side still.
But unlike Romanians, we did not join Alliance and did not have to carry the burden of Soviet occupation and control.
Assault of Finland was for to take back the lands ( firstly ) and press the finnish authorities finally to leave the alliance with Nazy Germany too.( that was later has reached succesfully)
Do not forget the GErmany was aimed to prevent the possible capitulation the Finland- they planned even the occupation. So Finns did not even hear about negotiations of peace till the most end (when th Red Army has began the assault)
Take back the lands not belonging to them in the first place, break co-operation because we were never allies, and if succesful, claim the lands.
Hey, could you be able to dig up information about Soviet marines? Once I read about these troops how they bloodied Finnish troops in Hanko and learned how to use knives in battle from them.(funny thing was that Swedish, not Finnish troops guarded the Hanko Peninsula, and no succesful Soviet landfall was made, ever.)
I think the big question remaining is:
If the finnish people has been not so stubborn in his resistance against the soviets invaders…would the russian just stop in Karelia?
I read in this topic that “…there was no plans to further invation”, sorry my lack of confidence in Stalin word, but is just I dont trust in the moustached guys.( just look Hitler)
I think it time to forget about hostility and begin to trust each other. Heve to use the Rusian datas too.
Mainly because of the scarse availability of Russian sources. Also, I was not sure weather the true figures survived the Soviet re-writing.
Nobody is going to re-write the Archives, do not worry.
Agreed. What do you think is the reason for such a large difference? I imagined that many bombers which slipped from the fighters came down after they had reached friendly territory.
This is not strange indeed , coz the Soviet 327 lost airplains contain 86 that were missed without confirmations including non-combat reasons ( i.e crashes and ets) so that figures could be not showed in finnish datas.
In the Isthmus, Finns took back their own, in other areas High command attempted to gain the lakes.
Yes you perfectly right here , just look at map again
The Finns captured the pure russian East Karelia lands- the Russian city Petrozavods were never finnish, as well as the Like Onega was always inner russian like ( and River Svir too)
The russian population of those lands were placed into the Concentrations camps near the front line and were used as Hostages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Conquest_of_East_Karelia
About 30% (24,000) of remaining Russian population were confined in camps, 6,000 of them refugees on the move captured when awaiting Soviet transportation over Lake Onega, and 3,000 from the southern side of the River Svir, allegedly to secure the area behind the front line against partisan attacks. The first of the camps were set up on 24 October 1941 in Petrozavodsk. During the spring and summer of 1942 3,500 detainees died of malnutrition. During the last half of 1942 the number of detainees dropped quickly to 15,000, and as the nutrition situation improved, only 500 more people died during the last two years of war.
The Concentration Camp for Russian childrens. in the occuped land of Eastern Karellia
…
…After the war, based on the testimonies of the former prisoners of war, criminal charges were preferred against 1381 Finnish camp staff, resulting in 723 convictions and 658 persons released. They were accused of 42 executions, 242 murders. There were the seven cases led death under the request of former prisoners, 10 cases of death as a result of the tortures, eight infringements of the property rights, 280 official infringements and 86 other crimes.
SO as we could see it was far no the simple GooD Finnish will to take its lands back:)
It was the conquer compain that was aimed to cupture the russian lands ( that was russian since 1616)
Those in the officers who actually wanted the keep the Eastern Karelia for good were kinda rare. Most had no illusions about the matter. This is first hand information, from my Grandfather. He lived through those times starting as a lieutanent and ended as a captain. Being part of the wealthier social class, he had good connections and lots of information.
Yes i think most of the officers had no illusions about it.
However you do not tell why they had no
i.e. the failure of GErman barbarossa in winter the 1941 - made the finns more realistic:)
North was ours to begin with.
Germans were allowed to use our areas, but you must understand that they provided us with vital grain. There really were no one else to trade with.
not but only the grain, but also and wearpon and ammunitions.
The GEreman supplied the Finland whole the war till the 1944 with the materilas.
Once the railway to assist Leningrad was completed, Finnish Long Distance Patrols rarely if ever sapped that line.(you do know about those grim fellows?) Again, Mannerheim himself put his authority to the play and gave spesific orders not to hit the line. Also, Finns did not distrups the Laatokka/Ladoga lifeline.
Right but finns still hold the siege. The politial situation in world ( American pressure and British declaration of war, failure of Berbarossa)) force them not to attack the SU further.
Have to dig it up, I’m sure it’s in the town Library also. Reading it in english is not a problem.
I’m sure it should not be a problem.
To secure `Communistic´(totalitaristic) rule of SU. Sad.
Sure sad, as and sad fact that most of those statese were involved into the Nazy war mashine ( except poor Poland and Yugoslavia)
-I understand what you mean, but my stance is that those three armies thrown against us had a task to break and take us. At the very least to break us from war, and in that they succeeded.
Yea , absolutly right-the Assault was necessary firstly to came Eastern Karelia land back ,and to force finnish gov push out of NAzy alliance.
-Factors were highly succesful Finnish Assault Guns http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/sturmireferencebg_1.html, Extremenly accurate artilley, Finnish radio intelligence and German Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey.
Yes i kew about some of bright episodes of GArman-Finnish military cooperation during the war.
But unlike Romanians, we did not join Alliance and did not have to carry the burden of Soviet occupation and control.
Take back the lands not belonging to them in the first place, break co-operation because we were never allies, and if succesful, claim the lands.
True, all wat it was need from finland- returm back some of lands and break off with Nazy/ Plus some of repatriations and political conditions.
Hey, could you be able to dig up information about Soviet marines? Once I read about these troops how they bloodied Finnish troops in Hanko and learned how to use knives in battle from them.(funny thing was that Swedish, not Finnish troops guarded the Hanko Peninsula, and no succesful Soviet landfall was made, ever.)
Oh i never heared about that. Very interesting, i will try to search
It’s just because of the bloody history between our two kinships. And don’t worry, I am not into that Russo-hatred. In my opinion, I think that Russians only need to gain the trust they lost while SU was in power.
This is not strange indeed , coz the Soviet 327 lost airplains contain 86 that were missed without confirmations including non-combat reasons ( i.e crashes and ets) so that figures could be not showed in finnish datas.
Conditions for flying were horrible then, and after a while Soviets did avoid flying in weather they knew was going to bring even more danger apart from interceptors.
Yes you perfectly right here , just look at map again
The Finns captured the pure russian East Karelia lands- the Russian city Petrozavods were never finnish, as well as the Like Onega was always inner russian like ( and River Svir too)
The russian population of those lands were placed into the Concentrations camps near the front line and were used as Hostages.
Many times I’e seen this claim of Concentration camp, but these camps can’t be compared with German concentration camps. -Simply because there was no slave labour, no extermination and no intentional cruelty.
Large portion(note, not all) of Russian born people were put into camps, men of fighting age were not around.
-Later court and punishments were given because Soviets demanded blood.
These camps however were not hostage sites, and they were not near the front.
The deaths are real, but then again, many will refuse to see that during that time there was a famine in Finland and Civilian population suffered greatly, the Karelian refugees in particular because they had no stock.
After guards and medicals of the camp complained about the conditions, the prisoners got medical care and better food.
-Before Finns retreated, they made sure the prisoners were supplied food to last for two whole weeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Conquest_of_East_Karelia
SO as we could see it was far no the simple GooD Finnish will to take its lands back:)
It was the conquer compain that was aimed to cupture the russian lands ( that was russian since 1616)
Before 1616 those lands were Karelian and Inkeri. St.Petersburg was built on a land which had Inkeri-folk. These days Inkeri-kins can move to Finland if they can proove their bloodline and pass the language examination. We have such a family next door, great people.
-So, who owns the land and by what right?
After the Civil war of Finland, there were attempts to claim Eastern Karelia, but they failed due to the lack of intrest. At the time of Continuation war, intrests were tactical; small Field army could hold strips of land between the lakes and thus Give Finns a chip to bargain with. -It’s well known here that High Command knew that the Germans would not succeed.
Yes i think most of the officers had no illusions about it.
However you do not tell why they had no
We were 4,2 million, Soviets were 140 million. That’s why.
i.e. the failure of GErman barbarossa in winter the 1941 - made the finns more realistic:)
not but only the grain, but also and wearpon and ammunitions.
The GEreman supplied the Finland whole the war till the 1944 with the materilas.
False. German weapons came late in the war, as Germans tried to convinec Finland to keep fighting.
At First, Finns bought Curtiss-75, Morane-Saulnier 406/410 and other material Which Germans had gained from the Western Front.
Later Finns bought Me-109 G planes and StuG-III Assault Guns, and during the massive Soviet assault we bought “Armor fists”(panzerFaust) and “Armor horrors”(Panzerschreck).
Finns also Bough 15 of the `Panzer IV ausf J´, 5 million Finnmarks per piece, though these were used only in Lappland War.
-Germans sold, and did not supplie, because we really did not use that much German materia, but that of Soviet.
Right but finns still hold the siege. The politial situation in world ( American pressure and British declaration of war, failure of Berbarossa)) force them not to attack the SU further.
We can’t hold what we did not upkeep.
Sure sad, as and sad fact that most of those statese were involved into the Nazy war mashine ( except poor Poland and Yugoslavia)
Hungarians and Romanians. Hungary actally had slipped into a dictatorship, but tried to gain independence then, and later. ¤sigh¤ They are kin to Finns, and I feel sorry that they had to endure so much.
Yea , absolutly right-the Assault was necessary firstly to came Eastern Karelia land back ,and to force finnish gov push out of NAzy alliance.
Yes i kew about some of bright episodes of GArman-Finnish military cooperation during the war.
But, we were never Allied to Axis. And Flight Group Kuhlmey Helped in pin-point accurate ground support. The only German forces which took part in those battles.
True, all wat it was need from finland- returm back some of lands and break off with Nazy/ Plus some of repatriations and political conditions.
Political conditions were hard to dodge and war against th Germans effectively destroyed ALL of Lappland. After that, Karelia was lost, Lappland was in ruins and Soviets demanded ridiculous amounts of money. THat’s not some, that’s too much.
(Have you heard about the Ice-Breaker ships and their saunas? That was hilarious episode.)
Oh i never heared about that. Very interesting, i will try to search
Thanks.