The Russo-Finnish War

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#162

If you ask me, I would say that it is not wise, to say it politely, to start a post with such a statement. Especially for a guy who just made 7 posts on the forum.
Besides it is not very bontone to place such large quotes and provide a short reply. It make forum browsing unpleasant.

You guys would do anything if you just could justify Winter War with Continuation War. The problem is that the Continuation War happened because of Winter War, not the other way around.

Really! Are you sure? No, really?!

The words of Molotov: “The Soviet Union will never allow a neutral Finland”.
Pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?

I just googled the Molotov’s phrase and got zero hits. OK, so you read it in Finnish. Could you give a source? Would be interesting to read in the original context.
If it is a real phrase it must be pre 1941, would be my guess.

#163

Neither of the highlighted I can dispute. As everyone wants to live in the secure environment.

So how do we approach this issue, i.e. finding the intentions of the Finnish goverment before 26 Junt 1941 and after? Any ideas?

#164

[quote=“Chevan,post:152,topic:2352”]

Finland didn’t have the choice as that was gone when THE SOVIETS INVADED 1939 - THE WINTER WAR. Learn to put 2+2 together.

#165

The truth is we will never know because the Soviets attacked Finland. But on the face of it why should we disbelieve it? After all Sweden, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland and effectively Spain all managed to remain neutral during the war. Why should Finland have been any different? Whats so special about Finland that you think they are pre-desposed to attacking the Soviet Union? A neighbour many times its size.

Sweden has a long military legacy in the area as well, how come everyone accepts their neutrality but some how a country less than 30 years old with a fledgling army armed with salvaged rifles and a few tanks and bugger all artillery is a massive threat? If you Russians actually thought about it for a second you’d be ashamed of the Soviets actions.

Truth is the Soviets were pissed that their revolutionary forberers lost the Russian Empire when they gave the states independance (believing that they would then embrace commumism and join the new Soviet Union) and set about re-claiming those countries, Estonia fell, Latvia fell, Luthenia fell, Poland fell but the Fins refused to co-operate and gave the Soviets a bloody nose to boot.

In the 60 years following WWII has Finland ever attacked the Soviet Union, for that matter in it’s short history as a country has it ever attacked the Soviet Union (except to reclaim captured land).

Think about it for a while and put aside all that cold war propoganda. It’s getting dated.

#166

[QUOTE=Egorka;119012]If you ask me, I would say that it is not wise, to say it politely, to start a post with such a statement. Especially for a guy who just made 7 posts on the forum.

I’m sorry if I have hurt your feelings. But this comes from my years of experience from Russians in the net arguing about ww2.

Besides it is not very bontone to place such large quotes and provide a short reply. It make forum browsing unpleasant.

If you had taken more time you’d have noticed that half of the quoted text is of mine. I seem to have troubles with posting.

Really! Are you sure? No, really?!

It’s not that far fetched, isn’t it really? Considering the tone which you and Chevan use here…with some subtle nuances in the middle. I can read them in your posts too.

I

just googled the Molotov’s phrase and got zero hits. OK, so you read it in Finnish. Could you give a source? Would be interesting to read in the original context. If it is a real phrase it must be pre 1941, would be my guess.

Original context? That’s a hoot. It’s prolly the most famous of Molotovs sayings here in Finland. I’ll post it when comrade Chevan finally founds his proof of Finnish nazism, racial policies and our imperialistic aims during ww2. :wink:

Actually, Molotov said it to Finnish diplomats…prolly before Winter War but I’m not sure. I have the book somewhere on the lot. I’ll post it, I promise.

#167

To start with I should mention that when I said “Really! Are you sure? No, really?!” I was just being ironic because AirdefMike asked “Continuation War happened because of Winter War, not the other way around.”

I sense that instead of talking to a specific person - me in this case - you reply to somekind of generic Russian opponent. That is the vibe I am getting.
What was exactly the message you want to convey to me in this passage?

Sweden has a long military legacy in the area as well, how come everyone accepts their neutrality but some how a country less than 30 years old with a fledgling army armed with salvaged rifles and a few tanks and bugger all artillery is a massive threat? If you Russians actually thought about it for a second you’d be ashamed of the Soviets actions.

The same goes here. What and to whom do you want to say?

Truth is the Soviets were pissed that their revolutionary forberers lost the Russian Empire when they gave the states independance (believing that they would then embrace commumism and join the new Soviet Union) and set about re-claiming those countries, Estonia fell, Latvia fell, Luthenia fell, Poland fell but the Fins refused to co-operate and gave the Soviets a bloody nose to boot.
Yes, agree with most of it. So?

In the 60 years following WWII has Finland ever attacked the Soviet Union, for that matter in it’s short history as a country has it ever attacked the Soviet Union (except to reclaim captured land).
No, Finland never attacked or even was hostile to USSR during those 60 years.

Think about it for a while and put aside all that cold war propoganda. It’s getting dated.
What cold war propaganda? Where? Can you point at it?
Who are you talking to?

#168

My feelings are fine. I doon’t mind my opponents being sarcastic or such but statements like that one just have no debating value.

If you had taken more time you’d have noticed that half of the quoted text is of mine. I seem to have troubles with posting.
Well, I see now… but it is practicaly imposible to read. You should understand it.

It’s not that far fetched, isn’t it really? Considering the tone which you and Chevan use here…with some subtle nuances in the middle. I can read them in your posts too.
When I said “Really! Are you sure? No, really?!” I was just being ironic because AirdefMike asked “Continuation War happened because of Winter War, not the other way around.”.
I guess I did not articulate it well enough.
And subtle nuances… Well, “I’m sorry if I have hurt your feelings.”. :wink:

Original context? That’s a hoot. It’s prolly the most famous of Molotovs sayings here in Finland. I’ll post it when comrade Chevan finally founds his proof of Finnish nazism, racial policies and our imperialistic aims during ww2. :wink:

Actually, Molotov said it to Finnish diplomats…prolly before Winter War but I’m not sure. I have the book somewhere on the lot. I’ll post it, I promise.
I will be waiting.

You also mentioned the Soviet Bomber orders. Do you have scans of those? How can we get to see them?

#169

Airdef, I ask that you refrain from making personal insults. Please attack the post and not the poster so that what is otherwise a great discussion does not degenerate into just plain internet flaming. This is an informal warning. Thanks for complying…

#170

You know, I tried not to get drawn into a debate I have only a passing knowledge of (from reading many similar debates between Russians, Finns and even Communist Fins) but I still got pulled in. I only wanted to point out the state of small arms used by both sides, stupid me :D.

Egorka you are right, my post was directed towards the Russian revisionists out there that want to re-write Soviet history in a more favourable light and not you personally as I have not read enough of the thread to know your stance.

I just got tired of the revisionists vilifying Finland, a tiny country that only managed to survive the brutal aggression of its’ massive neighbour out of sheer stubbornes, skilled deplomancy and a good deal of luck.

#171

Bas,

That is fine.
And it is good that you got drawn into the debate - is not it the meaning of such forums?

Thoug, I think that our (of all the participants in this thread) discussion is lacking fokus. I mean we are talking about different things most of the time.

Again, this is my position shortly:
1939 - Finns defended they Motheland. My respect to them!
1941 - Finns started agression not only breaking the threaty but also with ambitions to capturemuch bigger area than before. That is what I keep hearing from Poles: “You signed a theaty and you broke it. There is no excuse, we do not care what was the realities of the current politics. You broke the treaty.” So I do not know how I should reconcile these two…
It is true IMO that Finns were not Nazists. IMO Chevan is bending the stick too much. But as I know those camps were populated based on ethnicity. That is not to say that the Finns were particulary tried to eliminate the Russian speaking population as such. Correct me if I am wrong.

#172

Nää, it’s not stupid, and I’d say talks about weapons used in the wars do belong here aswell. It really gives more depth detail than just numbers of troops or armor/artillery.

Egorka you are right, my post was directed towards the Russian revisionists out there that want to re-write Soviet history in a more favourable light and not you personally as I have not read enough of the thread to know your stance.
Well, I can say that after SU collapse, Finns have been more free to talk history as it was instead of the history which SU wanted.
This sometimes leads to collisions with some Russians.

I just got tired of the revisionists vilifying Finland, a tiny country that only managed to survive the brutal aggression of its’ massive neighbour out of sheer stubbornes, skilled deplomancy and a good deal of luck.
I have actually read how Finns were backstabbing traitors AND monsters who invaded the helpless Soviets, at the same time.
The amount of human endurance and sisu displayed in the wars, plus diplomatical skill was amazing, even though great mistakes were made in the process.

#173

Ah, it was about previous points. How I asked about some information about Soviet views on the battles and siege of Hanko and about Soviet Marines in general.
Hanko is an area(of battle) which Soviets seemed to fabricate quite a bit, in example the aerial victories and such.

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”.
Hmm, that makes more sence, because Karelians were allied to Novgorod.(and shared religion)
But it’s clear that Russians did not own the land.(neither did the Häme kingdom)

#174

Jesh, agreed.

Thoug, I think that our (of all the participants in this thread) discussion is lacking fokus. I mean we are talking about different things most of the time.
More like hopping from a topic into another with haste.

Again, this is my position shortly:
1939 - Finns defended they Motheland. My respect to them!
Usually we disagree on the goals of this war.

1941 - Finns started agression not only breaking the threaty but also with ambitions to capturemuch bigger area than before.
This is relevant issue.
-I’d say the important factor is the reasons behind the attack.
¤With that the notion that Finns call era between the wars “Interim Peace”, because of the knowledge that it will go on and prepared the army as best we could.
¤Both Germans and SU knew about the coming great war, Finns saw an opportunity.
¤Winter War left a burning desire to “get even”.
¤Kinship expeditions right after the Finnish Civil War left some officers wanting to unite all the Finnish kins under one flag.(not to mixed with “Great Finland” which actually was an Estonian invention)
¤Constant pressure and meddling with Finlands internal affairs confirmed that SU did not recognize Finnish sovereignity.

That is what I keep hearing from Poles: “You signed a theaty and you broke it. There is no excuse, we do not care what was the realities of the current politics. You broke the treaty.” So I do not know how I should reconcile these two…
Hmm. I know that Finns were forced to sign a treaty. Kallio declared;“let this hand rot, which signs this treaty!”
Treaty signed because of immence threat and ongoing violence sparks hatred.

It is true IMO that Finns were not Nazists. IMO Chevan is bending the stick too much. But as I know those camps were populated based on ethnicity. That is not to say that the Finns were particulary tried to eliminate the Russian speaking population as such. Correct me if I am wrong.
There was an intent to move these Russians to Russia as soon as the war ended.
I understand why, although I do not agree. It was to not to have racial discriminations within the nation and to prevent minorities to face constant threat. But also to point out that Russians have no say-so on our matters, because there’d be no Russians in Finland as a minority.
(just to point out that Russians living in Finland as we gained full independence wanted to be part of our nation, so we have never had any problems with them, and they have mixed into Finns)
-One thing I have forgot to mention. The partisans operating here were not usually from here. They were not living in Karelia or invaded areas, but were brought here, so they were not pure partisans to begin with, which partially explains their rocky success.

#175

Just found this, seems VERY intresting;
http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/20464-amazing-multimedia-russia-war.html

#176

I never told that they were the Nazis.
But we have very enough sources and evidences ( including the Western ones) about Race Segregation and Discrimination ( for instance in feeding) in the occuped lands of Karelia.
Besides the number of war crimes based on the race-hate and commited by the finns are pretty obvious.
So although i could be a bit biased, but finnish revisionism that still is based on the race ideas is very danger tend.

#177

[QUOTE=AirdefMike;119033]

Finland didn’t have the choice as that was gone when THE SOVIETS INVADED 1939 - THE WINTER WAR. Learn to put 2+2 together.

Has the history has been started in the 1939?
And what was right after Finnish civil war in 1920. Remind us please the finnish point of view of the Agressive finnish attack.

#178

Well since i have posted the full list of evidences of Finnish Race policy and Imperialistic aims ( capturing the whole Karelia) in my previous posts- you could show us the original context:)

#179

Fenninca,

Maybe I missed something, but what is that “Hanko is an area(of battle) which Soviets seemed to fabricate quite a bit”?
The page you reffered to is just, pay attention, words of a guy who is telling what his grandfather did in WW2. Do I need to explain how factually reliable this text should be regarded to be?
This is essentially an oral histoy. In oral history facts merge, disappear and replace each other. It is a basic human thing. How much factualy reliable information can you say about your grandfatehr’s youth? I bet it would be just as valuable historicaly as that tale.

According to your logic 30 later one reading my posts on the Internet would be able to state what my grandfather did. Think about it. It is a basic source critic thing.

#180

About how hard it is to get the opposing views which would be accurate.

The page you reffered to is just, pay attention, words of a guy who is telling what his grandfather did in WW2. Do I need to explain how factually reliable this text should be regarded to be?
This is essentially an oral histoy. In oral history facts merge, disappear and replace each other. It is a basic human thing. How much factualy reliable information can you say about your grandfatehr’s youth? I bet it would be just as valuable historicaly as that tale.
From my grandfather? Quite a bit.
I posted it here, because it was intresting, and because I’d like to know wht Soviets/Russians thought/think about Hanko battles.

According to your logic 30 later one reading my posts on the Internet would be able to state what my grandfather did. Think about it. It is a basic source critic thing.
Indeed. But that one I posted up, was jost to show that it is rather difficult to find good, solid information.
Did you check the multimedia show yet?

#181

You mean that flash-presentation about the Eastern front? Yes, it looks very tasty and interesting. It was opened for the 60 years jubilee of the Victory.