Why did not Finland help Norway?

[Philip S. Walker]

@Jarkko Hietala

Philip: What alliance?

Jarkko Hietala: The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocol

It's a trade agreement and a non aggression pact, not an alliance. The idea to call it an "alliance" seems to have been invented by an American CIA agent called Benjamin B. Fisher. I'm surprised that the Finns, who themselves have a very narrow idea of what constitutes an alliance, can call the Ribbentrop pact an alliance.

Philip: But from the summer of 1940 onwards exposed to pro-German propaganda.

Jarkko: Finland has been exposed to propaganda from all sides since beginning from independence of Finland at 1917.

But this time offices were set up under the Finnish government with the view of making the population more positive towards a war on Germany's side, and a Finnish representative was sent to Germany to study propaganda methods.

Norway had active Nazi party of its own who ruled Norway as collaborationist goverment.

They were inserted and backed by the Nazi occupiers.

Up to 15,000 Norwegians volunteered to fight in German units, including the Waffen-SS. I know that there were thousands of voluteers from Denmark too who joined to fought for Nazi Germany.

We have been looking at these things on another thread: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=176120. We have been looking a number of other factors that might indicate the number of Nazis, such as subscribers to their newspapers etc. The results all come out the same, i.e. like this:

Once again: In the 1930s, Denmark was one of the very few countries in Europe where the fascist/nazi ideology, and any other totalitarian ideology (Communism in particular) failed to have any impact on popular support. Among other countries, I can only come to think of Great Britain, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands where fascism/nazism/communism failed to have such little support.

Though Denmark, for very good reasons from 1940 to 1943 accomodated its big and feasome neighbour to the south, there is no question that the country was a natural allied with the U.S. and Great Britain.

And this:

If you look at the election figures they show very clearly that there was only minimal enthusiasm for the Nazi cause in Denmark, even when most people seem to have been thinking that the Nazis would win the war, and even though the Nazis were promoting the Scandinavians as the creme de la creme of "Übermenchen". The Danes as a people, unlike several other nations and ethnic groups, had nothing to fear from the Nazis, in fact quite the opposite - the Nazis were promising them the Earth on a plate and the Moon on a stick. But according to the election results no more than a very small percentage of Danes fell for the temptation to become Nazis (the best result ever for DNSAP was 2.1 %). Instead, they chose to largely ignore the whole idea from the beginning and later on more than 40.000 joined the Resistance against the German occupiers. In my opinion all this says something extremely positive about the Danish people, which they themselves far too often overlook.

And comparing with Finnish SS volunteers this:

Seppo Jyrkinen: This operation got 2.009 volunteers only, of which 1.566 were accept by Germans and 1.098 were send to Germany. Those numbers are surprising small compared to values of Denmark and Norway. One possible explanation is that in Finland recruiting was totally in Finnish hands and radical right wing movements (and volunteers too) were kept out of it.

Philip S. Walker: The Finnish people according to Nazi race theories were pretty much bottom of the pile (though the Germans did change their minds about this after the Winter War), which might have curbed their enthusiasm a bit. But was the number of Finnish recruits really so low? The SS-recruitment in Finland took place over a very short span of time, in fact only 2-3 months between when it was launched and the outbreak of the Continuation War. In Denmark and Norway recruitment took place over four years! Also, the Finnish Battalion only existed for some two years and there was no noteworthy recruitment to units outside of it. These things considered the enthusiasm in Finland for joining the SS was actually very high compared to Denmark-Norway.

Then you wrote:

You cannot directly say that votes that party get in the election do not tell the whole story about support of Nazi ideology becouse eatch Nordic countries have different voting systems and parlamentary elections.

I don't think you can run away from the fact that there were considerably more Fascists in Finland at that time than in the other Nordic countries. The numbers are very far apart.

@Vaeltaja

General reference to M-R Pact which gave free hands to the respective parties in the areas discussed in the said treaty and its accompanying documents. Also given that Germany had very eagerly interned and blockaded the shipments of war material to Finland during the Winter War (unlike other nations) in spring and early summer of 1940 Germany appeared to Finns anything but friendly (from Finnish POV calling Germany as Stalin's ally immediately after the Winter War was not that far fetched idea).

All I say is be careful with the word "alliance". The word gives a misconstrued image of the relationship between Germany and the USSR at that time.

Walker wrote: As far as I know Finnish Karelia was invaded, conquered and occupied twice, the second time permanently.

Vaeltaja: However the people who lived were not conquered nor were they forced to live in a occupied country. They did voluntarily evacuate the land, twice

It's a terrible story and I deeply sympathise with these people so I hate to be pedantic about this, but I'm just getting tired of all this emphasis on Finland never being occupied when in fact it isn't true. Finnish Karelia was - and some would stay "still is" - occupied, and whether the occupants from the area managed to get away or not isn't relevant to this specific issue.

Given that Finns chose to postpone the elections until the end of the war and that previous parliamentary elections had been held in 1939 this didn't really have that big of an effect in Finnish politics - next elections were held in 1945.

The elections don't really have to come into this. It's about building up motivation to go to war on Germany's side, dampening opposition and strengthening fighting power with the use of undemocratic methods.

Unlike other Nordic countries Finns had been forced to fight a Civil War in which the Red (socialist) side had been openly and eagerly supported by Bolsheviks (and Communist Party). It was bound to cause a backslash.

That's my point, really. It seems to have been a more politically polarised society than the other Nordic states, probably with more class distinctions as well. That's the impression one gets, anyway.

Thanks for the link to site about the Finns who actually did come over to help Norway. Should not be forgotten (likewise the Swedes and Finns who volunteered to help Denmark in 1864). Hopefully we can get some more info on them as we go along.

[Jon G.]

Re this:

...If you look at the election figures they show very clearly that there was only minimal enthusiasm for the Nazi cause in Denmark, even when most people seem to have been thinking that the Nazis would win the war, and even though the Nazis were promoting the Scandinavians as the creme de la creme of "Übermenchen". The Danes as a people, unlike several other nations and ethnic groups, had nothing to fear from the Nazis, in fact quite the opposite - the Nazis were promising them the Earth on a plate and the Moon on a stick. But according to the election results no more than a very small percentage of Danes fell for the temptation to become Nazis (the best result ever for DNSAP was 2.1 %). Instead, they chose to largely ignore the whole idea from the beginning and later on more than 40.000 joined the Resistance against the German occupiers. In my opinion all this says something extremely positive about the Danish people, which they themselves far too often overlook...

...see this viewtopic.php?p=1571163#p1571163

[Vaeltaja]

Its good to keep in mind that Finnish Waffen SS volunteer battalion was recruited after German 'suggestion' that it might improve the relations in the Winter 1940/41 - hence the nickname 'Pawn Battalion'. Also given that Finnish participation to the war against Soviet Union at that time was still uncertain and that the Finnish Waffen SS included a clause which prohibited Germans from using them against any one but Soviet Union (well - roughly) it allowed an avenue for Finns to seek revenge against Soviets while serving in German ranks in a way like Jaegers had. Also recruitment was handled by Finnish officials and not by Germans.

I don't think you can run away from the fact that there were considerably more Fascists in Finland at that time than in the other Nordic countries. The numbers are very far apart.

As said before equating Finnish extreme right as fascist is not exactly true.

All I say is be careful with the word "alliance". The word gives a misconstrued image of the relationship between Germany and the USSR at that time.

That it does - however as long as people call what took place between Finland and Nazi Germany an alliance i certainly reserve a right to call what took place Nazi Germany and Soviet Union an alliance.

It's a terrible story and I deeply sympathise with these people so I hate to be pedantic about this, but I'm just getting tired of all this emphasis on Finland never being occupied when in fact it isn't true. Finnish Karelia was - and some would stay "still is" - occupied, and whether the occupants from the area managed to get away or not isn't relevant to this specific issue.

Finland was never occupied - certain parts of Finland were annexed/captured. Saying 'Finland was occupied' is certainly false as whole of Finland (into which use of term Finland in this case refers to) was never occupied. Also calling what took place in the Finnish Karelia as an occupation is misleading since the occupying troops were the only residents of the area and that as the captured lands were hastily incorporated (even before being captured...) into existing Soviet 'states' it was annexation of territory, not occupation.

That's my point, really. It seems to have been a more politically polarised society than the other Nordic states, probably with more class distinctions as well. That's the impression one gets, anyway.

With good reason. None of the other Nordic countries had faced a Civil War instigated by a foreign power. Rise of anti-communist sentiments is pretty much what could be expected to happen.

[Jarkko Hietala]

@Jarkko Hietala
It's a trade agreement and a non aggression pact, not an alliance. The idea to call it an "alliance" seems to have been invented by an American CIA agent called Benjamin B. Fisher. I'm surprised that the Finns, who themselves have a very narrow idea of what constitutes an alliance, can call the Ribbentrop pact an alliance.

My English dictionary says that:

Alliance = a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes.

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocol means that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union cooperate for specific purposes and they had treaty about it. Nazi Germany took active steps to weaken Finnish defenses during Winter War like blocking weapon shipments from Italy to Finland also Nazi Germany diplomacy was hostile toward Finland during Winter War.

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocol prove that Soviet Union and Nazi Germany cooperated as purpose to conquer territory and take more controls of the world by taking states named in the treaty.

I rate it military alliance becouse Nazi Germany and Soviet Union cooparated and coordinated actions militarily to conquer Poland, Baltic states and Finland, and also divided the land between eath other. Finland remained as only part of the treaty that people were never occupied or conquered.

It is not that different from how Allied coordinated their action to meet spesific purposes and made treaties between UK, CANADA, AUSTRALIA and USA. In the end what Alliance is? It is cooparation and coordination and making treaty about it.

[Philip S. Walker]

@Vaeltaja

Its good to keep in mind that Finnish Waffen SS volunteer battalion was recruited after German 'suggestion' that it might improve the relations in the Winter 1940/41 - hence the nickname 'Pawn Battalion'. Also given that Finnish participation to the war against Soviet Union at that time was still uncertain and that the Finnish Waffen SS included a clause which prohibited Germans from using them against any one but Soviet Union (well - roughly) it allowed an avenue for Finns to seek revenge against Soviets while serving in German ranks in a way like Jaegers had. Also recruitment was handled by Finnish officials and not by Germans.

These kinds of promises were not unique in the case of Finland and can't be used as any kind of special excuse for the setting up of the Finnish Battalion.

As said before equating Finnish extreme right as fascist is not exactly true.

A political party based on the ideas of Mussolini is per definition a Fascist party.

Philip S. Walker wrote: All I say is be careful with the word "alliance". The word gives a misconstrued image of the relationship between Germany and the USSR at that time.

Vaeltaja: That it does - however as long as people call what took place between Finland and Nazi Germany an alliance i certainly reserve a right to call what took place Nazi Germany and Soviet Union an alliance.

I would say that as long as you maintain there wasn't an alliance between Finland and Nazi Germany, you should make sure not to make the same mistake yourself in other areas. By doing what you do now, you really only underline that you are not trying to portray the truth, but indeed to present a misconstrued image in both instances. 1) The only reasons there wasn't a written alliance between Finland and Germany were purely practical and in practice irrelevant. 2) The use of the world "alliance" about the Ribbentrop Pact makes Finland's situation look more desperate than it was: as if the two countries were planning to wage war against Finland as a united force.

It's little word games like these that annoy non-Finns endlessly, as we have seen time and time again on these pages, and it doesn't help you one bit. You have to understand the psychology behind this. We have a lot of sympathy for the Finnish cause, but we don't need your attempts to manipulate us into thinking you were even more innocent victims of circumstance than you actually were. Stay with the part of the truth that really matters.

Finland was never occupied - certain parts of Finland were annexed/captured. Saying 'Finland was occupied' is certainly false as whole of Finland (into which use of term Finland in this case refers to) was never occupied. Also calling what took place in the Finnish Karelia as an occupation is misleading since the occupying troops were the only residents of the area and that as the captured lands were hastily incorporated (even before being captured...) into existing Soviet 'states' it was annexation of territory, not occupation.

Again, these are just silly word games meant to big up yourself, and all they do is harm your own cause. What kind of an effect do you think it has on people from nations that were occupied by Germany when you pride yourself that you were not? Considering that you freely invited the Germans in and did everything you could to grease them, it's a pretty steep one to pride yourself of not being invaded by them. Likewise, priding yourself to never have been occupied by Russia, when in fact Finnish Karelia was invaded twice and subsequently annexed - well, that is just another ridiculous attempt to big up yourself. This kind of historical revisionism via silly word games, which seems to have gone rampant in Finland since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it a minor tragedy in itself. It's completely unnecessary, falsely self-glorifying, an insult to others, and damaging to Finland's international image. If I wrote this down in Danish an presented it to a Danish public to make them understand Finnish history better, they would be rolling with laughter. It's not the way to go, not at all. It's just typical small country attempts to outweigh their inferiority complex with a kind of self-promoting overkill that is all too easy to shoot down.

Philip S. Walker wrote:That's my point, really. It seems to have been a more politically polarised society than the other Nordic states, probably with more class distinctions as well. That's the impression one gets, anyway.

Vaeltaja: With good reason. None of the other Nordic countries had faced a Civil War instigated by a foreign power.

And none of the other Nordic countries had an upper class as the one in Finland that practically ruled the majority of the population in Feudal manner which had been abandoned elsewhere more than 100 years previously.

@Jarkko

My English dictionary says that:

Alliance = a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes.

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocol means that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union cooperate for specific purposes and they had treaty about it. Nazi Germany took active steps to weaken Finnish defenses during Winter War like blocking weapon shipments from Italy to Finland also Nazi Germany diplomacy was hostile toward Finland during Winter War.

That is not the kind of images the word "alliance" creates in people's minds in circumstances like these, and you know it. They will think of coordinated military operations. You are trying to manipulate, and as soon as people see what the truths is, your attempts will backfire and they will stop believing in anything else you have to say, however right and true.

I rate it military alliance becouse Nazi Germany and Soviet Union cooparated and coordinated actions militarily to conquer Poland, Baltic states and Finland, and also divided the land between eath other. Finland remained as only part of the treaty that people were never occupied or conquered.

It is not that different from how Allied coordinated their action to meet spesific purposes and made treaties between UK, CANADA, AUSTRALIA and USA. In the end what Alliance is? It is cooparation and coordination and making treaty about it.

Word games. You know exactly what effect you create when you use the word "alliance". You conjure up an image that draws the attention away from the fact that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were already deadly enemies long before 1941, only using various pacts and agreements in order to outdo each other in the diplomatic field, each party seeking to gain the best possible position for itself when the crucial moment arrived.

[Jarkko Hietala]

Word games. You know exactly what effect you create when you use the word "alliance".

It is not word game to avoid word games we have english dictionaries that tell official meaning of the word.

I checked definition of word alliance from two different english online dictionary and Wikipedia:

1. arrangement between people to work together. an arrangement between two or more people, groups, or countries by which they agree to work together to achieve something

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alliance

2. a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes.

2. Is from word 2010 Online Dictionary

3. An alliance is an agreement or friendship between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance

You conjure up an image that draws the attention away from the fact that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were already deadly enemies long before 1941, only using various pacts and agreements in order to outdo each other in the diplomatic field, each party seeking to gain the best possible position for itself when the crucial moment arrived.

USA and UK have been historical enemies and fought a war against each other. That doesn’t mean anything. It do not chance the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet union cooperated and coordinated actions towards common goals and made treaty about it and it was part that isolated small and poor Finland alone against Soviet Union at Winter War. This alone meets the definition of alliance between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.

Only option Finland truly had was to balance between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union and Allied trying to get whatever possible to get by bargaining with everybody and trying to remain as independent as possible. Virtually it is just trying to get as much as possible by committing as low number of own resources as possible.

Allied was not only major power back then witch Finland had to negotiate. Germany has historically helped Finland a lot like giving help for White guards during civil war at Finland between White guards and red guards at 1918.

Finland always attempted to keep negotiations channel open with all sides if there was no negotiations it was only because larger sides enforced no negotiations policy on Finland on purpose. Finland always attempted to solve problems peacefully and in the way that maintains Finland as independent nation. Sadly this was never goal of the other parties of that time.

[JAK]

I think that what is discussed above has been through in multiple other threads...

[Philip S. Walker]

Yes, and every time it goes tragically wrong for the Finnish side and they end up losing friends and supporters. Funny they don't even try to listen and reconsider.

I hope it wasn't the same kind of attitude that led the country into the Continuation War. Is it a general Finnish tendency that you MUST be right and perfect in every respect possible, or else your whole world crumbles?

It's not that bad, guys. We love you just the way you are, even without the white camouflage.

[Vaeltaja]

These kinds of promises were not unique in the case of Finland and can't be used as any kind of special excuse for the setting up of the Finnish Battalion.

Special excuse? Why would that be needed? Finnish Battalion was recruited at the time when it still was uncertain if Finland would participate to the war at all.

A political party based on the ideas of Mussolini is per definition a Fascist party.

Finnish extreme right wing parties were not based on ideas of Mussolini. They were as said several times already primarily anti-communist parties (or movements) who took on certain aspects from Italian fascists (and later on also from German Nazis). Painting them as fascist parties outright does not represent the whole truth.

Again, these are just silly word games meant to big up yourself, and all they do is harm your own cause. What kind of an effect do you think it has on people from nations that were occupied by Germany when you pride yourself that you were not? Considering that you freely invited the Germans in and did everything you could to grease them, it's a pretty steep one to pride yourself of not being invaded by them. Likewise, priding yourself to never have been occupied by Russia, when in fact Finnish Karelia was invaded twice and subsequently annexed - well, that is just another ridiculous attempt to big up yourself. This kind of historical revisionism via silly word games, which seems to have gone rampant in Finland since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it a minor tragedy in itself. It's completely unnecessary, falsely self-glorifying, an insult to others, and damaging to Finland's international image. If I wrote this down in Danish an presented it to a Danish public to make them understand Finnish history better, they would be rolling with laughter. It's not the way to go, not at all. It's just typical small country attempts to outweigh their inferiority complex with a kind of self-promoting overkill that is all too easy to shoot down.

Difference between occupation and annexation is actually something that really exists. In Winter War Soviet controlled puppet government was formed for which (at least nominally) the lands were annexed to (mostly). The land captured from the (white) Finns was therefore not occupied, instead it was annexed. In 1941 when Finns retook the land they took back only what had previously been Finnish land but they only occupied the Eastern Karelia without placing any kind of claim on it or attaching it to the Finland in any manner occupying it until summer 1944.

Also furthermore claiming that 'Finland was occupied' is not truthful. As discussed before Finland per se was not at any point occupied. Certain parts of Finland might have been occupied for short duration before they were annexed by Soviet Union - however that does magically require Soviet Union to have occupied (the whole) Finland. If that hurts Danish feelings then it hurts Danish feelings - I ain't going to lie to make Danes feel better. It would be about as correct in terminology as to state that Nazi's occupied Britain in WW2 - though in reality they hardly occupied all of it.

If some one is in pains that their country was occupied but Finland was not it is not any problem of mine.

And none of the other Nordic countries had an upper class as the one in Finland that practically ruled the majority of the population in Feudal manner which had been abandoned elsewhere more than 100 years previously.

In Feudal manner? What are you talking about?

[Harri]

Philip S. Walker's assumptions and attitude are clearly based on very illogical information on Finnish history and the actual meaning of the past happenings. I don't wonder this because during the war USSR started a massive propaganda campaign in Northern America directed towards Finland. Much of the false arguments are based on these Soviet views and seemingly keep on living even today...

But what this has to do with the Finnish help on Norway?

[Philip S. Walker]

@Vaeltaja.

You are missing the point. Again, again, and again. This is not about being formally right or wrong, but about the impression you make on other people when you paint a portrait of yourself as a nation in this historical context.

"Finland was never occupied," you tell us ever so proudly. Who cares, when the fact is that you invited the Germans in and joined them, and afterwards 10 pct. of your country was annexed to the Soviet Union.

"The Finnish Batallion in the SS was only fighting for Finland," we hear, as if we haven't heard our own SS-volunteers repeat the same rubbish over and over a thousand times and know how to see through it. These people had heard about "Crystal Night" like everyone else and knew the gang they were teaming up with. Do you think we're stupid?

"The Finnish army never surrendered," you tell us. Well, no, it didn't because the Finnish politicians made sure to enter into a settlement with the enemy before their army was crushed to bits.

"There was never a formal treaty between Germany and Finland." No, because it would have been impossible to keep secret since it would have to be taken through the Finnish parliament who, incidentally, probably would have rejected it.

"No Jews were persecuted in Finland." Excellent. But how much is that worth, when thousands of Russians died in Finnish concentration camps and God knows how many POWs were handed over to either side, including former volunteers in the Finnish army who were handed over to the Russians.

"The Finnish right wing was not Fascist, only anti-Communist," we now hear. Well, unfortunately there is no such political party as "The Anti-Communists", and I'm sure these fellows must have had a few more things on their agenda in order to earn the reputation they got.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Why do you need them? We can see through this gibberish anyway, we're not idiots. And the really stupid thing is that you don't need it. We can live with the fact that Finns are just human beings like everyone else. That's why we like and even admire you. We've read the books and seen the films: real human being with good and bad sides. Just like the rest of us, but also interestingly different. We don't want or need you to be perfect.

Now, look instead at this, which Jarkko posted:

Only option Finland truly had was to balance between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union and Allied trying to get whatever possible to get by bargaining with everybody and trying to remain as independent as possible. Virtually it is just trying to get as much as possible by committing as low number of own resources as possible.

Now, THIS is crucial stuff. Jarkko indirectly compares Finland's situation with the small European nations that got occupied by Germany and felt forced to cooperate. Many can recognise that from their own country, and many more can easily understand. They can also understand why Finland had to act more radically, for simple geographical reasons. Spot on!

And more from the same post by Jarkko:

Allied was not only major power back then witch Finland had to negotiate.

Again, this is REALLY worth pointing out, particularly if you keep reminding people that Russia had not yet become an Allied nation when the Continuation War started.

And a final one from Jarkko:

Finland always attempted to solve problems peacefully and in the way that maintains Finland as independent nation. Sadly this was never goal of the other parties of that time.

Stick with stuff like this, make certain everyone is 100 pct. sure again and again and again that you do not in any way sympathise with the war crimes of the Nazis and you regret deeply that you were forced to join them, and for God's sake cut out the word plays and the self-congratulation because no one believes it anyway, it just makes them think you got something to hide behind that armoured facade of pretended faultlessness.

Now, read the above again slowly and this time at least TRY to understand what's going on here before you send those old familiar snowballs of white innocence flying again.

@Harri.

Philip S. Walker's assumptions and attitude are clearly based on very illogical information on Finnish history and the actual meaning of the past happenings. I don't wonder this because during the war USSR started a massive propaganda campaign in Northern America directed towards Finland. Much of the false arguments are based on these Soviet views and seemingly keep on living even today...

You should wonder, and wonder deeply, because my views come from mainly Finnish sources, this brilliant forum being among them. I just know how to see though self-delusion and manipulative attempts, that's all.

[Hanski]

A political party based on the ideas of Mussolini is per definition a Fascist party.

Please then provide us sourced evidence of the IKL being based on the ideas of Mussolini.

[Hanski]

By Prof. Mauno Jokipii, Jatkosodan synty [The Birth of the Continuation War] (Otava 1987, ISBN 951-1-08799-1), p. 108-113:


2. The occupation of Norway in spring 1940 Changes the position of Finland

The background of the German occupation of Norway had mainly to do with naval strategy. The experiences of the First World War as well as more recent war games showed that with its mighty navy and great mine blockades, Britain could close the German navy within the North Sea, unless Germany could get bases from farther away for operations on the North Atlantic. Grand Admiral Raeder is known to have hoped for a naval base for Germany from Mid or Northern Norway already in 1937. The Pact of 1939 with the USSR only gave a small submarine base, "Basis Nord", from the Litsa Bay to the east from Petsamo, but the service there from ships or the unbuilt shores of the desolate tundra remained small in scale and insufficient for the needs. Therefore, in the German naval circles Operation Weserübung began to take shape from November 1939 on, a plan of conquering Norway with a naval surprise attack, to get bases from there to extend the trade war to the Atlantic, against the vital sea communications of Britain. Also securing the transport of ore from Narvik motivated the German operation, although only a minor share of the Swedish ore exports to Germany used this route. It may be that for Hitler, the latter issue was more important than the need of naval bases, and that rumors of the British triggered the action.

Operation Weserübung targeted against Norway did not commence until later in the spring on 9 April 1940, which is after the Finnish Winter War had already ended. Also Britain was preparing for a respective operation, and thus Germany only made it somewhat earlier.

Both sides were active at the same time. The decision of the British Government to mine the coastal seaways of the neutral Norway was made on 1 April, France approved it on 5 April, and the minelayers that set out immediately began their work on the Norwegian seaways on 8 April. -- Hitler's decision to execute the German operation was made on 2 April, the slowest cargo ships meant to reach farthest set out on the sea on 3 April, and the large and fast units of the war fleet on 7 April, which is on the same day as the British Home Fleet, which they were close to encounter on the western side of Trondheim on 8 April. When the German landing all along the Norwegian coastline took place at the same time on 9 April, they could thus use as a formal reason the mining carried out by the Royal Navy on the previous day.

In Southern Norway the German operations made quick progress, but Narvik fell to the Germans only after difficult battles in early June. During the battles, Finnmark in Northern Norway was planned as a neutral area under Swedish military control, but after the German victory this did not materialize. The North was for a while ruled by a pro-German satellite government of Norway that had been established in Oslo, but as soon as 15 June Hitler ordered also the Northern Finnmark to be occupied by light German troops.

The development of the [Finnish] foreign policy after the Winter War made the German Envoy to Helsinki, Mr Blücher, afraid for some time that until now neutral Finland would pick the side of the Allied in the great power war in order to secure its position. From a high Finnish authority he got to know on 5 April that the British operation to Narvik would begin within three days. The talks of Foreign Minister Witting on 6 April seemed to point towards a change of Finnish policy line. The moving about in Helsinki of Mr Bell, the former Consul General of Britain of the years 1918-19, for propaganda missions made Mr Blücher nervous, as well as the very cordial reception by [the Prime Minister, Mr Risto] Ryti of Mr Charles Hambro, the under secretary of the British Ministry of Economic Warfare (MEW) on 7 April 1940. Because of the cold relations with Germany, Finland might try to make arrangements of its trade via the Arctic Ocean with the support of Britain.

When the German attack on Norway had begun on 9 April 1940, Blücher's fear of a Finnish change of policy still continued. Among others, he wrote to the Auswärtiges Amt about this possibility on 19 April. Obviously the Finnish Government has indeed considered closer relations to the West. However, when the trade with Central Europe would have then been entirely cut off because of Germany, economically it would have been change for the worse. Speculations of a larger volume of trade with the West seem to have ended in Finland, when Britain notified Ryti on 18 April 1940 about finishing all trade with Scandinavia for the duration of the war in Norway. The relatively quick turning of Finland (already on 26 April) was also caused to a great deal by the fact that only with German permission could the shipments of the orders of war material from the time of the Winter War -- regarded as having primary importance to the Finnish capability for defense, now stuck in Norwegian harbors -- be released and get delivered.

The battle of Narvik lasted from April 1940 to early June. The hard-pressed German troops of General Dietl (most of 3rd Mountain Division and naval forces) were saved by the voluntary departure of the superior British forces on 4-8 June 1940, due to the situation on the Western front. All of Norway surrendered to Germany on the next day. The 2nd Mountain Division, advancing from the south by road, was still 130 km from Narvik then, but after a march across the mountains (Operation Buffel) it arrived there on 13 June. In mid-June, the remaining 3rd Mountain Division was brought by ships to Narvik and further to Tromsø, which is close to the border of the Finnish western "arm". From here on, the neighbor of Finland in the North was not the small, neutral Norway, but the strong Great-German Reich.

From the papers of the V Army Corps, commanded by General Siilasvuo from Oulu and covering the whole Northern Finland, one can well track how accurately the Finns knew about these issues. The General HQ informed on 30 May, how a large British aircraft had visited Kirkenes on 23 May, with its Norwegian defense being taken in Narvik direction. The British large naval forces moving in the waters of this area were listed. The British had held the opinion that "the Russians will not take measures regarding Northern Norway" (underlined in the source).

In the evening of 8 June, two Norwegian aircraft landed on Salmijärvi of Petsamo, and later (on 9 June) another two, of which one was a bomber, with a total of 40 men in them. In the morning of 9 June, two Norwegian aircraft landed at Petsamo, and still one more in the evening. The airmen told that Norway had made an armistice, and the Allied troops are departing from Norway. The Norwegians requested to be interned. They also told it was feared that Soviet troops will land in Northern Norway. At Salmijärvi, also 30 Norwegian civilians had crossed the border, as well as the Consuls of Britain, Belgium, and Spain.

The General HQ telegraphed to the 11th Division at Rovaniemi on 9 June 1940: "Norwegians who have crossed the border will be interned, separating officers, NCO's, staff, and civilians. Must be treated well, to be transferred to Rovaniemi at the first instance. The Air Force will send Finnish pilots to fetch the Norwegian aircraft. By order, Colonel Melander."

A couple of days later refugees are listed: from Enontekiö 40, Utsjoki 38, Salmijärvi 13, and Kolttaköngäs 3. The Assistant Chief of the State Police, Bruno Aaltonen, had arrived at Rovaniemi to lead the internment. -- By 13 June, already more than 200 refugees had arrived at Siilastupa, among them Air Force officers, and at Nuorgam, first 44 soldiers and 4 civilians, then 21 soldiers more. "According to what the Norwegians told, a deal would have been made with the Germans, according to which the Military Province of Tromsø would remain under Norwegian control, where they could carry weapons and hold exercises. The Norwegians are however said to have requested the Germans to occupy some locations also in this area".

For the interned Norwegian military persons, the Civil Guard was ordered to establish a camp in Kemi on 15 June 1940, where all of them were to be reported and sent.

Even though after the German victory Northern Norway initially remained practically Norwegian land, small German garrisons were sent to its towns as symbols of the formal taking of power. Thus the German flag was hoisted in the flagpole at Kirkenes on 15 June 1940 by the SS-police troops (Sonder-Bataillon "Reitz") that had been brought on the spot. On the following day, the town was visited with a German aircraft by the State Commissar Terboven and about ten authorities of the new administration to negotiate with the "Royal" Norwegian authorities on the new situation. As it is known, Terboven, who was still running the administration aside from the Quisling "regime", overtook the latter by the autumn and from 27 September 1940 onwards ruled Norway as a kind of German Governor General.

The Finnish General HQ informed its troops in Northern Finland on 1 July that about 30 German infantry soldiers carried out guard duty in Kirkenes then, brought by air. The harbor was guarded instead by Norwegian soldiers. According to Norwegian information, in the near future about 2000 additional Germans were expected to arrive at Kirkenes, to guard the border. At least a part of them have soon arrived, as the Norwegian Captain Bengts had been at Svanvik by the Paatsjoki river to reconnoiter accommodation for about 40-50 Germans, who would arrive there as border guards. Bengts had told that the Germans had been very interested in the traffic to Liinahamari and the trade relations between Finnmark and Finland, which in their opinion should be quickly fixed. -- By the direct order of Himmler, the Commander of the SS-Battalion, Reitz, began already at the end of July tying direct relations with Finns. He is known to have met the military Commander of Northern Finland, General Siilasvuo, in Ivalo on 5 August 1940.

As it is seen from the previous, the Finns could follow quite accurately the events of Northern Norway with the help of their relations and refugees.

From the viewpoints of grand politics, economy, and strategy, even a weak occupation of Northern Norway had great significance for Finland. Even though the number of German troops in Finnmark was still small, they could be increased as needed. In Finland it was realized that the trickle of trade with the West, which had been just started via Petsamo, was entirely dependent on German approval. Even if during the Winter War, British aid could still have made it to Finland via the neutral Norway, it could no more manage via the occupied Norway and the Danish straits under German control. Besides that, Britain had been defeated for the moment both on the Continent and in Norway, and a landing was even threatening its domestic island.

As Finland needed for its policy a counterweight to the Soviet Union, Sweden and Germany were thus left as its only alternatives. When co-operation with the little Sweden had been cut off by the Soviet Union right after the Winter War as previously explained, only the direction of the victorious Germany was left open for Finland. The Finnish leading statesmen realized this, quite apart from their personal preferences. On 4 July, Foreign Minister Witting said to Blücher that there was an "avalanche-like" development in Finland for an attitude favorable for Germany. It went thus far that a Cabinet was even planned that would orient itself towards Berlin. However, the abrupt political turn of the Finns, with coats being turned by the wind, had such an obvious tendency that the official Germany did not want to visibly respond to it at once.

On 13 August 1940 Hitler ordered a great reinforcement of the German troops in Northern Norway. Then the 2nd Mountain Division, deployed to the north from Trondheim, had to be shipped to the Kirkenes area, and the 3rd Mountain Division had to transfer its troops by land northwards from Narvik, among others to the fjord of Alta, which later became a major base for the German open sea fleet. The German Mountain Divisions in Norway had been joined into a Mountain Army Corps in July 1940, under the lead of "the victor of Narvik", General Dietl. He was also assigned on 13 August the mission of preparing an operation known with the code name Renntier, with the purpose of rapidly taking the Petsamo region, including the Kolosjoki nickel mine and Liinahamari harbor, if the USSR should attack Finland. However, the second part of the mission was preventing possible landings in Northern Norway, planned by the Western Allies, or protecting the very long shoreline of Finnmark.

Because of the order, the Mountain Army Corps was deployed in August-September 1940 to its new northern guard posts and also its winter camp to be as follows:

2nd Mountain Division to Finnmark county
Reinforced Mountain Jaeger Regiment 136 from Kirkenes to Teno (Tana) river
Reinforced Mountain Jaeger Regiment 137 from Hammerfest to Lakselv and Karasjok and from Alta to Kautokeino

3rd Mountain Division to Nordland county
Reinforced Mountain Jaeger Regiment 138 from Tromsø to Nordreisa and Balsfjord
Reinforced Mountain Jaeger Regiment 139 from Narvik to Saetermoen

Troops subdued to the Army Corps in the middle of the region in Alta fjord;
the HQ there aboard a passenger ship

The before mentioned SS-battalion Reitz took responsibility from here on of only guard duty of the Varanger Peninsula. It was assisted by another battalion after August 1940, and together they became on the order of SS-Führungshauptamt of 12 November 1940 the SS-Totenkopf-Standarte K or the SS-Police Regiment Kirkenes. In April 1941 it was renamed as SS-Infantry Regiment 9. The plan that was born as desk work in Berlin or Oslo deployed troops far inland. Thus the Mountain Army Corps achieved among others that in Kautokeino, instead of a battalion, only a company was stationed; even less would have sufficed at the border of the friendly Finland.

From Hitler's viewpoint, Dietl's troops were securing eastwards his extreme left flank by the Arctic Ocean, just like the training division sent to Romania and the Air Force secured his right flank by the Black Sea. At the same time, the German troops in Finnmark secured even from behind the border the Petsamo nickel for Germany for all eventualities, equally as the German troops in Romania secured with their presence the Romanian oil remaining available for the Greater Germany. From Finland's viewpoint, the reinforcement of German troops in Northern Norway showed why Germany requested right of transit there. Under the prevailing circumstances of the time, there was no reason to turn down Germany.

[Philip S. Walker]

Thanks Hanski! Great initiative. I think I can say on everyone's behalf that we are looking forward to reading this.

[Jarkko Hietala]

@Vaeltaja.
Stick with stuff like this, make sure everyone is 100 pct. sure again and again and again that you do not in any way sympathise with the war crimes of the Nazis and you regret deeply that you were forced to join them, and for God's sake cut out the word plays and the self-congratulation because no one believes it anyway, it just makes them think you got something to hide behind that armoured facade of pretended faultlessness.

I thought that it was already proven that majority of Finnish citizen have never supported extreme right wing parties or Nazism or fascism ideology. Bashing with Nazi or Fascism card is not just fair. That card was often used against Finland in Soviet Union propaganda to force Finland closer ties with Soviet Union.

You completely fail to understand position of Finland after Winter War. Finland desperately needed economical help, grain and weapons and was exhausted from attack of Soviet Union country of one hundred times larger resources than Finland. Only side that could offer that was Nazi Germany who wanted a lot of things in return like moving troops trough Finland if there would have been any other option to improve Finnish position at time I am sure that Finnish politics would have never agreed terms offered by Nazi Germany but situation back then was poor and offers of help did not came along any other place. Second round against Soviet Union offensive alone as option was not possible. Allied never offered much of the resistance to stop Josef Stalin or Hitler back then if France and UK would have offered better resistance I am sure Finland would have been other options than take the offer of Nazi Germany.

Any war crimes that Finland committed was very small even Finnish invasion against Soviet Union was limited one and attack was stopped as soon as territories lost in Winter War were gained back. Blaming Finland from Nazi Germany war crimes is as just as blaming Ireland for war crimes of USA using of weapons of mass destruction against civilian of Japan. Punishing Finland from very small crimes is not very fair when use of weapons of mass destruction go totally unpunished. Finland had as much power to stop Nazi Germany doing war crimes as Ireland was power to stop USA using nukes.