Finland never was a formal ally of Germany, it was more an arrangement of convienance. This enabled the Finns to walk a very thin tightrope and keep their country at the end of the Continuation War.
So was USSR and Germany in 1939 - 1941. Right?
[QUOTE=Egorka;118785]
Yes, that is me.
Why do you ask?
Nothing special. Just asking.
Ok. Fair enough.
So, what is your answer on Germany-Finland from June 1941 and onward? Were they allies?
No. Why do you think that Finns were so loud about being NOT allied with Germany during the war? Why do you think the Finns had different war aims and objectives during the war?
Why do you think that Hitler wanted an alliance during the summer of 44? Because there wasn’t one in existance.
Finland was driven into Axis camp by the actions of Soviet Union. Those action were diplomatic pressure and war. If the SU really wanted a neutral
Finland why they blundered in their diplomacy so much?
Finns didn’t go around declaring wars like the Germans did.
That is cool! Are you into the region’s local history? I am interested in some events in Northen Finland during 19th century.
Not much. I’m not of Sami ppl, mind you. But you can ask on a different section and especially on a different thread if you like. I hope that I can answer.
Talking about matters which did not materialize eventually? Very likely.
When is exactly “the beginning”? Before 26 June 1941 what was the goal of the palanned war against USSR? When did the plan of “3 isthmuses” appeared first?
Again, I cannot say for certain, but I suspect that Isthmus re-conquista(hehe) was the only objective first, but as the war progressed, the High Command recognized the possibility to continue until the ideal defensive positions would have been reached.
That is clear. I have no questions about “WHY”, i.e. they wanted to increase Finlands security. But it was planned at the expense of the neighbour. Just like USSR in 1939. You see? No?
I see and understand your point here, but the initial thrust was because of SU actions.
And it had only been 20 years since the kin-wars was waged, so it is highly possible that Finns sought to take the Karelians lands as some had tried after our civil war.
That is clear. I have no questions about “WHY”, i.e. they wanted to increase Finlands security. But it was planned at the expense of the neighbour. Just like USSR in 1939. You see? No?
A nice subversive try. The ground in Eastern Karelia (in front of the 3 isthmuses line) was ideal tank country.
It isn’t sensible military strategy to send an army consisting mainly of infantry to the open to be destroyed by Soviet mechanised and armored formations.
Finns stopped on the old border in the Isthmus. Once the Soviet defenses collapsed in the Finnish attacking phase of the Continuation War the Finnish Army of Isthmus didn’t make a rush for Leningrad. And there was a clear window for this to happen.
Wouldn’t the capture of Leningrad increase Finland’s “security” more?
I’m not an expert on the legal niceities of international law, but the written/signed agreement Germany and the Soviet Union had agreeing to attack and carve up Poland was pretty formal.
That Hitler saw the agreement as a matter of convience is probably true.
As far as I am aware, Finland had no formal agreement with Germany to carve up the Soviet Union. Furthermore to the Fins the war was just a continuation of the 1939-40 war that the Soviet Union started. It should also be noted (if it hasn’t already) that the Fins only captured the territory they lost to the Soviet Union (plus a buffer I think) and refused to advance any further. Much to their supposed ally’s annoyance.
The siege of Leningrad is an example where the Fins refused to close the ring around the city allowing the Soviets to re-supply albeit in limited amounts.
[QUOTE=AirdefMike;118862]
Nothing special. Just asking.
Have you seen my gem in there - the thread on if USSR had plans to ivade Sweden during WW2?It got a bit hostile on the way. But appart from that it was much fun considering that the discussion was going half Swedish half English.
Have you seen it? Do you know of “Varanger frågan” in the first half of 19 century?
No. Why do you think that Finns were so loud about being NOT allied with Germany during the war? Why do you think the Finns had different war aims and objectives during the war?
They were loud because they wanted to stay away from getting involved into war with UK and USA. Why else? Yes, Finns were not nazist. But as I know they were also rethorics about eliminating Bolshevism, i.e. changing the goverment in USSR. So the aims we different on the grand scale, but considering the role a country like Finland can play on the global scale, the goals were cooaxial with German ones. One could argue that the differnece in the goals was only in size of bite.
Why do you think that Hitler wanted an alliance during the summer of 44? Because there wasn’t one in existance.
Right, Hitler was pushy and loud about it. Someting Finns did not want. UK and USA whould like otherwise…
Finland was driven into Axis camp by the actions of Soviet Union. Those action were diplomatic pressure and war. If the SU really wanted a neutral
Finland why they blundered in their diplomacy somuch?
Well… I see you point. I think it can be debated that Finland was kind of forced into war by the evildoings of USSR. I see the reason behind. But I am not prepared on this right now, but I will look it up.
Finns didn’t go around declaring wars like the Germans did.
Well, it is not like Finland has a bunch of neighbours to choose from.
When was the window for that to happen?
Wouldn’t the capture of Leningrad increase Finland’s “security” more?
Not unless UK/USA would get pissed. At the end they were interested in USSR to remain fighting almost as much as Stalin self.
Besides, as I know Finland never wanted to do the German’s work. So it all depended on what Wehrmacht did and planned.
To my mind, this the key in this issue. Knowing when Finninsh govermment/command planned for the future border to go by “Gulf of Finland - Ladoga - Onega - White Sea” whould determine the scale of Finninsh “agressivness” at that time.
Well… formaly IIRC there was not single word about carving Poland in the MRP. I mean it was about “areas of interest”. As I know Germans and Finns also planned military cooperation prior to June 1941.
Furthermore to the Fins the war was just a continuation of the 1939-40 war that the Soviet Union started.
That is what Finns say. Fair enough.
USSR also signed a Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Poland in 1918. So according to this logic the Soviet 1939 Polish campaign was a “continuation war”?
It should also be noted (if it hasn’t already) that the Fins only captured the territory they lost to the Soviet Union (plus a buffer I think) and refused to advance any further. Much to their supposed ally’s annoyance.
Double check the maps. They captured much more and had even bigger future plans.
The siege of Leningrad is an example where the Fins refused to close the ring around the city allowing the Soviets to re-supply albeit in limited amounts.
Very limited. 600.000 starved. By the way it is possible that it actually was a Finnish idea to starv the people in the beseiged Leningrad instead of stroming the city.
I mostly have a passing interest in the politics of these conflicts so I could be off the mark, but I’m pretty sure that because of the MRP, Germany turned a blind eye towards the Soviet invasion of Finland. Certainly not the behaviour you would expect of a potential ally. Finland had no reason to trust Germany any more the Soviet Union. However the German invasion gave her the opportunity to re-claim territory lost in the Winter War.
I fail to see the relevance of Soviet motivations for the invasion of Poland in this discussion.
Then why were they not executed? Certainly the Fins had the military capability, opportunity and Germany was applying pressure for them to do so. Even elements within the Finnish armed forces wanted to push further.
Suposition that without factual backing doesn’t add anything to the discussion. The facts are that the Fins made the deliberate decision not to encircle Leningrad, resaulting in the city getting re-supplied. If they had wanted to starve the city they would have met up with German forces and encircled it like the Germans asked.
[QUOTE=AirdefMike;118649]
Thank you…it seems that the Finns still do the defending and Russians the attacking. The irony isn’t lost on me.
Well i have to use - finns initially usially attacked and then “defend”.
Look up at the beginning of thread who attacked whom first:)
The fact that this is probably propogandic photo does not prove that the Concentration camp for civils never existedIs that a question? That propaganda only proves the Soviet attempt to prove that Finns were of equal evil as the Nazis. For this the Soviets had a clear purpose.
Oh really…
Now look ata the photos of Children of Auswitz
DOes it mean that soviet had falsified this photos?
Finns had different kind of camps for different purposes: for prisoners of war and to detain Soviet citizens (the partisan threat).
True.
We did tell heare about Concentrations for POWs where the according finnish datas the death-rate was even higher than in NAzy camps.
We speak about civils- the simple woman, olders and children and other “partisans”.
From the 30 000 of passed through the camps about 10 000 died.See above.
What you don’t know is that the Finnish authorities called for help from the International Red Cross to solve the problems with the camps. Also Swedish reporters were allowed to inspect the camps. Later, these problems were solved according the rules given by the IRC and the mortality dropped.
Yea…
You maybe don’t suspect but Nazy also allowed the Red Cross to inspect Auswitz in the mid 1944.
And they also support that it’s “all righ” here:)
So does it mean we could trust the Red Cross datas?
Ooh…are you trying to make me look like a nazi…or a holocaust denier? How low of you…but it’s not a surprise given by the vocabulary you use on this forum.
You know man what is actually low?
The dany of Racial policy in the occuped lands.
The 1/3 of people died here becouse of cruel conditions.
And you deny those obvious things.
This is pretty low of you.
Of course there are always warcrimes happening on a smaller scale during a war. You are trying to paint the Finns as Nazis which is quite clear here.
Yes you right here
The finns here look pretty like the NAzy in this photo.
I dig out this photo to prove the Fennica that the number of war criminals were in the finnish army.
He try to assert that the soviets demanded “innocent finnish soldiers” as war criminals after the war.
So there were war crimninals indeed as we can confirm by this photo.
I don’t really know what Stalin dreamt of…I doubt that you do either. The Soviets executed the Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty to the full: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia and Finland. Just that is proof enough. In the end SU was the invader.
You do not mix the Finland to those ones.
The finnls attacked the USSR in the 1920-21 and captured the Russian Petsamo.See above.
The other side of the Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty was that the Nazis sold Finland to the Soviet “sphere of influence”. How that relates to your claims of Finnish-Nazi friendship? Do you think that our leaders back then didn’t smell anything fishy? If you don’t…I’d call it “narrow”. In the same way the Soviet Union sold the free Western democracies to the Nazi “sphere of influence”.
Now you hit me…
And how about the Romania ( that were sold by the NAzy TWICE : Initially Hitlers sold part of their land to Hungary , then Bessarabia to the USSR:))
Was it a problem of Romanian-Nazy friendship ?
BTW i have to add that the Romanians ( to the contrast of Finland) actively did fight with NAzy last year of war.
So they really deserved to be included in the allied side.
Is the so called “narrow Finnish nationalistic view” worse than the present Russian nationalistic view which defends the actions of Stalin’s tyranny against smaller neighbours? This is defending war communism actually.
Now man tell me whan did i defend the communism?
I just defend the memory of peoples who were killed by the “smaller neighbours” henocide.
You show your poor knowledge of Winter and Continuation Wars here constantly…to be more to the point, you just post the official Soviet history of WW2.
Leave you revisionist comment for others clever boy.
There is no any hint at the “official soviet history” in the Western documents like wiki and finnish historians books that i have presented here.
Funny that you mention the 1918 -1939 era. The Finnish Civil War…hmm…what where Soviet-Russian troops and military advisors doing in the ranks of the revolutionary reds? (and elsewhere in eastern Europe?) Finland and Soviet Union were in a middle of de facto (undeclared) war until the treaty of Dorpat.
No no no
I mean not the Civil war where the finns were supported by Germans ( now we could see where the Nazy -finnish friendship rise from:)
I mean the first and Seconf Rusian-Finnish wars of 1920-21 when finns attacked and captured the Russians lands.See post 122.
“Viena expedition and Aunus expedition” ( what a peaceful finns - they called the pure captured military compain as “expeditions”
I’ve taken my time here reading these forums before I posted…so infact I’m very familiar how you use the (still pretty unreliable) Wikipedia. You use only snippets which can be used to reinforce you claims and ignore the facts which might refute them.
Oh yea pretty unreliable Wikipedia:)
You know i try to use the western sources- if i will use the russians ones ( that should pretty reliable according you nationalistic logic)Coz you use ONLY the finns inner propogandic convenient points and sources.
Yep, that’s correct. Finnish army of Karelia occupied defensible line connected by lakes. Its’ called the line of 3 isthmuses. It was thought be a good defensible ground to await the decisive Soviet attack which would eventually settle the war(s). But this isn’t really the answer to the point I made, now isn’t it? So you haven’t really answered to it.
I have answer but you still have not seen it in my previous posts.
I’m just tired to repeat it.
But you confirmed that finns stealed the pretty big piece of russian land.
Lol! Stalin was concerned about “Finnish - Nazi friendship”? This is hilarious!
Maybe Stalin really shouldn’t have invaded Finland back in 39 it seems. Britain (and the Commonwealth) declared war on Finland only to please Stalin. I wonder why the Brits didn’t have any demands at the peace table from Finland?
Really the Brits declared the war on Finland coz of demand of Stalin?
It seems you try hard to forget the Britain has been bombed by Nazy in this period. And Who did supply them the Nikel?
Nickel was a precious commodity in the world back then. It was very unlucky for Finland that the deposit was discovered. That nickel pretty much guaranteed the unwelcomed Soviet and German interests towards Finland.
Agree
But Germans ( to the contrast of Allies) had the primary access to the finnish Nickel , right.
As well to the Sweden ore.
When Finland was at peace, the country can trade whatever with whoever it can. But unfortunately, we needed arms and food and Germany was the only provider available because they’ve invaded and conquered Scandinavia.
But you still have a choice to be at least neitral as the Sweden was.
Why did you agreed to meet the GErman army in our territory?
As far as Great Britain is concerned, they left Finland alone during Winter War and during times of such difficulties, a country has look for it’s own first.
The Great RBitain indeed have helped the Finland very much through the political pressure at Stalin.
Bu finns still did not wish recognize it
A good idea for you to think about. Why did the Soviets pressure Finland during the Interim peace?
As well as the Beritain and USA pressured them during the inevitable NAzy-Finnish cooperation.
Now did I? The Allies agreed on surrender terms for the Axis countries in Teheran. The main rule was “unconditional surrender” with 2 exceptions: Finland and Romania. Roosevelt argued with Stalin that Finland can be persuaded away from the fighting. Hmm…lets see what happened: Romania was invaded by SU and occupied. And what happened with Finland?
That’s right.
Not just Roosevelt but also and Churchill pressure at Stalin.
But if you will try attentive read - you have to notice that Stalin was agreed with them both with one exception -size of repatriations.
But he defenitelly agreed to stay th Finland independent in territory of the Moscow treaty of 1940.
And Both leaders were fully agreed with Stalin in territorial quetsion in Finland.
So finally the USSR had the full international righs at those territories.
3 days after Normandy landings (while the western allies’ eyes were fixated there) Soviet Union launched the 4th Strategic Offensive against the Finns to reach the Kymi-river deep in Finland and to crush the Finnish army completely.
True.
According the allies agreements - the Soviets launched this company for two reasons.
- take its lands back.
- to force the finns finally break the relation with NAzy.( coz as you maybe know the finns till the most end ddid not wish to break with NAzy)
Isn’t that a wee bit aggressive? Noooh…it was just the friendly neighbourhood Uncle Joe sending his liberators into Finland again.
What a Finland again do you mean?The Liberation of Russian Karela was in full harmony with allies.
And the finns still were in axis side when soviest started the offensive.
Actually it can be argued. I’ve seen the Soviet mission orders for their bombers. It’s in the records and in the net. Look it up. I heartily recommend it. In fact those Soviet bombers in Finnish airspace are both in Finnish and Soviet records. Must be the truth then.
What can be argued here?
Tha fact that whan the Barbarossa was started the finns together with germans mined the Gulf?
Or that they provided the airfields for German bombers first?
The German troops on Finnish soil didn’t commence their attack until Finland did. That was a demand from the Finnish government to which the Germans complied.
Oh it was so great help for Allies side in this war:)
So what then?
The finns asked the Nazy to wait for a week - does it mean they did not interacted with them?
Look above…you just helped to prove my point. And the Finns and the Nazies weren’t allies. This is Soviet propaganda…funny how it still exists.
Becouse this point has no relation to the "Mythical soviet Propoganda? indeed.Funny how you still have not understood it.
And the Britain that was also concerned the finnish participation in barbarossa declared the war on Finland.
And immediatelly began the blocade.
But so was the glorious liberators of Reddish Army of workers and peasants…right there on Finnish soil: Hanko, Salla, Viipuri (our 2nd largest city) …the friggin whole of the Isthmus.
Yes the glorious liberation of Karelia was nedeed to make the finns go out of Nazy.
The problem with the discussions with Russians is that the Soviet propaganda has painted the Finns with the same colour as the German nazies.
But the problem with finns that thay deny the any source ( even the western ones) as the “Soviets”.
that could beat their convenient theory of ww2 so called «ajopuuteoria»
But many of Western historians criticize this vertion of history.
Finland was a democracy…Nazi germany was a tyranny (as was SU). There’s a difference.
But was it the problem for finnish interests to take back the Karelia and probaly to realise the dream of Great Finland in case of full Nazy victory?
How Finland could not be an ally of Germany back then? The answer is very simple: The aim of the German foreign policy during the Continuation War towards Finland was to tie Finland very close to Germany and to it’s eventual faith (downfall). Ie. they wanted an alliance which never happened. This is documented and the truth. Luckily for us…our leaders needed the room of manouver in international diplomacy and never consented to an alliance. Thus the Finns and the Germans were co-belligerents.
Well you can call it as co-belligerence if you wish.
But this is just more convenient and soft word for NAzy-finnish cooperation, is it not?
The whole of case Finland can be expained very simply: Finland, the smallest democracy in Europe was invaded by Soviet Union (thus breaking the non-aggression treaty).
Aha ha ha ha;)
That great the Smallest democraty in Europe that realized the Race segregation policy for civils:)
The Democraty that absolutly voluntary had formed the Waffen-SS battalion to fight in NAzy service:)
Th Democraty where the death-rate of POWs in camps were even higher than in Gemans ones:)
I do undertsnad that the Finns have its own propoganda for purposes.
However i have not even guessed that your revisionism is more insolent that Germans one.
The Finnish Army fired shots in anger during the course of WW2 against soldiers of 2 countries: Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The biggest tyrannies in the world.
Oh yea, so tell as about “cruel battles” agains Nazy Germany?
How many GErmans the angry finnish solders did killed?
I think we are going in curcles in here. I already said that I do recognise that Finland had an “opportunity to re-claim territory lost in the Winter War” and that it was they main reason to assosiate wit h Germany. But it still not the total picture. Besides most of what you just have said can be said for example about Germany and USSR. Conclusion: in politics of that time both Germany, USSR and Finland were persuing their privat interests at the expense of their neighbours. Though I do acknoledge that USSR, mind the size, was more hungry than Finland.
I fail to see the relevance of Soviet motivations for the invasion of Poland in this discussion.
The relevance is apparent. To be able to get a wholesome perseption of the events.
Repartition of Poland 1939 was profoundly linked to the Winter war 1939. And since for Finns the events of 1941 are “Continuation war”, so even by the official finnish logic these cases can be put into perspective. You see?
I can offer you a little excersice:
Question: What country signed a disadvatageous peace deal with the enemy loosing large part of its territory, but when the opportunity appeared assosiated itself with the Nazi germany and with the means of military force retaken the lost and even larger peice?
Answer option:
[INDENT]1. USSR [ ]
2. Finland [ ]
3. Both [ ][/INDENT]
Put you cross?
Then why were they not executed? Certainly the Fins had the military capability, opportunity and Germany was applying pressure for them to do so. Even elements within the Finnish armed forces wanted to push further.
Becasue Finland firstly did not /could not do it alone. Though at the peak of the advance they captured MUCH more than the previous borders. I know the Finninsh excuse on that. It can be debated IMHO.
And secondly, because of the intricate game that Finnish goverment played trying to balance between Germany, Western Allies and USSR. Hat of for the Finnish goverment for such a smart paly, by the way. Do I need to elaboratre further on this?
Suposition that without factual backing doesn’t add anything to the discussion. The facts are that the Fins made the deliberate decision not to encircle Leningrad, resaulting in the city getting re-supplied. If they had wanted to starve the city they would have met up with German forces and encircled it like the Germans asked.
You should have more trust in people. Something that I learned in such forums is that if one is not 101% sure he should not chalenge others saying “Suposition that without factual backing doesn’t add anything to the discussion”. I myself learned it hard way.
I am not insisting if it was exactly Finnish idea to starv the citizens of Leningrad, as for this I whould have to verify when such plans first were said in the German camp. But I have a Finnish quote on that. It is taken from the memorandum explaining the current stuation sent to the Finnish ministry of Foreghn affair from the General Staff headquarters:
05-Sept-1941
“Occupation of Leningrad by the Finnish forces is unrealistic as we do not have enough food for the civil population.”
…
“Penetration of the fortifications located between the border and the city will reqire a lot of casualties as those fortifications are being strong, such that would not it be better to capture the city from the South, or even better to force city’s citizens to capitulate by means of the starvation.”
The quote is from the book “Leningrad’s siege and Finland: 1941-44” by Baryshnikov, 2002. The author reffers to this Finninsh source:
UM, 12 L. Puhelinsanoma pääesikunnasta 4.9.1941 UM:IIe.
So maybe our Finnish friends could look it up and verify if the translation and the context of the quotes have not been misinterpreted.
You do not spread a buls…t here.
Woman trooper:)
That was shot alongside with unarmed “Soviets”.
The original sign of this photo was :Russians KIA at Aunus Isthmus. One of the killed is a woman
In the finnish site.
I have suggested that this probably POWs ( the killed man’s in uniform).
By the woman anyway is civil.Besides she is half-dressed, i.e she likely was raped before death.
Now just try to prove otherwise.
It wasn’t such smart play indeed mate.
Look it up - finns finally losed all captured territories coz Allies ( Britain firstly) be angry of Pro-Nazy behaviour of Finland. They agreed with Stalin conditions to take back all of lands.
And fully agree finally with figures of finnish post-war compensations.
http://eng.9may.ru/eng_album_block/m9003717
'ere it is. Short story about how Soviets made landfall in Hanko and defeated Finns there… although there was no such landfall and there were no Finns in defending Hanko.
Every time I visit Karelia I remember my grandfather: had he and his comrades been less courageous and brave, we would not have seen this beauty. Russians forever discouraged Finns from venturing into what was originally Russian land.
This is part I really frown on.
True. Knowing fully the intentions and decidions of Finnish goverment would give us a clear picture of the Finnish intentions.
But facts are that Finns wanted stolen lands back, and wanted a good defensive positions. Those are good starting points.
Thusfar the opinions of one of our former president have been a sort of a guideline, but that cannot be viewd as a solid knowledge, only an opinion.
Sorry if i had accidentally insulted you, but nevertheless.
And lets admit that finns only defended. OK.
Do you seriously think that the fact that finn wanted the better positions for defence could justify for capturing the whole Russian Eastern Karelia?
I do not know why you mentioned this. But I wonder why when you chose the quote from that text you ommited the couple of sentenses that were just preceding your quote:
"Finnish soldiers are courageous and stubborn, not afraid of difficulties, just like Russians. Besides, they fought for their own land. "
Could as well be writen in a hardcore pro Finnish text.
What is your point in mentioning this webpage?
Update: I just looked up the Russian language version of the page (the original one) and it says “discouraged Finns from venturing into what was originally Novgorod’s land”.