Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#46

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 17 May 2011, 21:58

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Oleg Grigoryev wrote:Whatever the political goals were you are not going to find them in military documents.
Well... political documents suit me as well as IIRC someone has mentioned that war is just continuation of politics by other means.
Oleg Grigoryev wrote:Documents are all in Russian
http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/docs/dir0205.php Military directive of commissar of defense sent Leningrad MD with offensive plan
9th Army order http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/docs/dir03.php
Plan of the operation sent from Leningrad MD to the PCD http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/docs/dir0plan.php
Thanks for them, even I can't read them as they seem to be encoded so that they won't open properly at my pc.

Regards, Juha
That was quote by Carl von Clausewitz. That being said there is no mention of political plans in this document (that are using standard windows Cyrillic encoding ). Google translate can probably give some rough idea http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... ir0205.php

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#47

Post by Juha Tompuri » 17 May 2011, 22:36

Oleg Grigoryev wrote: That was quote by Carl von Clausewitz. That being said there is no mention of political plans in this document
Yes, not at that, but for example here Leningrad Military District orders some political rearrangements be done at Finland:
http://heninen.net/sopimus/19391129_e.htm


Oleg Grigoryev wrote:Google translate can probably give some rough idea http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... ir0205.php
Thanks, now I get the idea.
Cutting Finland in two and isolating (land border) it from the outer world.

Regards, Juha


User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#48

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 17 May 2011, 23:09

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Oleg Grigoryev wrote: That was quote by Carl von Clausewitz. That being said there is no mention of political plans in this document
Yes, not at that, but for example here Leningrad Military District orders some political rearrangements be done at Finland:
http://heninen.net/sopimus/19391129_e.htm


Oleg Grigoryev wrote:Google translate can probably give some rough idea http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... ir0205.php
Thanks, now I get the idea.
Cutting Finland in two and isolating (land border) it from the outer world.

Regards, Juha
Juha, I have done this before I honestly don't know what we are going to achieve by going through the same motions again. From my old post:
information.
"Kemsk axis and Rebeloa axis – independent rifle corps ( the 163 RD belonged to this one -oleg). The goal is to defeat Finnish covering units along the Kemsk axis and Rebola axis, to take areas of Kayaani and Nurmes in order to deny advance of fresh enemy forces from the Uleaborg, capture of Uleaborg, with cooperation of our forces of Kandalaksha axis , being the final goal."


"9th Army (Duhanov; 122, 163, 54 RD) is to take care of its own flanks, and to defeat enemy forces, by advancing with main body in the direction of Kayaani, with goal of achieving the line Kemiyarvi-Kantiomiaki, and in shortest possible time take Uleaborg "



that was in perfect agreement with the main idea of operation: "
The main idea of the operation is to simultaneously attack Finnish territory on all directions in order to pull apart enemy grouping and in cooperation with VVS to inflict major defeat on Finnish army. The main body of our forces advancing along Vidicia axis and from Karelian peninsula is to defeat the main Finnish grouping in the area Sortavala, Vipuri, Keksgolm. …"



Now that does not mean that Soviet Government did not have an intent of Finland’s Sovetization. My point was that you were not be able to find a proof of that in any documents related to military planning – simply because it was a political decision and not a military one – consequently in my opinion it is futile to look for the answers into captured divisional documents or whatever else.
I have not seen anything since that would change my opinion - namely it is not an unreasonable theory that USSR intended to Sovietize Finland but if such a decision was made, it will not be found in military documents.

Even The order by meretckov that you quoted is ambiguous at best. On one hand
The troops of the Leningrad military district to cross the border, smash the Finnish troops, and once and for all secure the safety of the north-western boundaries of the Soviet Union and the Lenin's city - the cradle of the proletarian revolution.
which could mean as occupation and Sovietzation of the entire Finalnd as well as fulfilling of the original Soviet demands. On the other hand
We respect freedom and independence of Finland, which was received by Finnish people as a result of the October Revolution and the victory of Soviet rule. For this independence the Russian Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Stalin have fought together with the Finnish people.
which could mean Independence as far as USSR can control it , or proper independent Finalnd -minus the land USSR captured -as was outlined in the pre-war demands. Both theories have their pro and cons.
People seem to interpret these based on their personal preferences, and my experience they are practically impossible to shift.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#49

Post by Juha Tompuri » 18 May 2011, 00:02

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:I have not seen anything since that would change my opinion - namely it is not an unreasonable theory that USSR intended to Sovietize Finland but if such a decision was made, it will not be found in military documents.
I'm not trying to convert you, just being interested on the facts, both military and political ones, as they here too go hand in hand.
Like the Soviet Kuusinen puppet government which replaced the Finnish legal government.
It was a political move to Estoniatize Finland, and to have similar complete control over Finland.
...and to remove Finland from the Soviet list of "potential attackers" for good.

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:Even The order by meretckov that you quoted is ambiguous at best. On one hand
The troops of the Leningrad military district to cross the border, smash the Finnish troops, and once and for all secure the safety of the north-western boundaries of the Soviet Union and the Lenin's city - the cradle of the proletarian revolution.
which could mean as occupation and Sovietzation of the entire Finalnd as well as fulfilling of the original Soviet demands. On the other hand
We respect freedom and independence of Finland, which was received by Finnish people as a result of the October Revolution and the victory of Soviet rule. For this independence the Russian Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Stalin have fought together with the Finnish people.
which could mean Independence as far as USSR can control it , or proper independent Finalnd -minus the land USSR captured -as was outlined in the pre-war demands. Both theories have their pro and cons.
I actually ment the part that was left out between your quotes:
We go into Finland not as combatants, but as friends and liberators, freeing the Finnish people from the clutches of the landowners and capitalists. We are not against the Finnish people but against the Cajander-Erkko government, clutching the Finnish people and provoking war against the USSR.
...and this detailed part:
Forward, the sons of the Soviet people, the warriors of the Red Army, until the complete destruction of the enemy!
Regards, Juha

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#50

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 18 May 2011, 00:29

I'm not trying to convert you, just being interested on the facts, both military and political ones, as they here too go hand in hand.
Like the Soviet Kuusinen puppet government which replaced the Finnish legal government.
It was a political move to Estoniatize Finland, and to have similar complete control over Finland.
...and to remove Finland from the Soviet list of "potential attackers" for good.
Juha , you are entitled to your opinion, but as you surely know, all points you have made are debatable, and posts on these subject as make a rather large portion of Winter War section. Let’s not spill it in here.
I actually ment the part that was left out between your quotes:…
Well he had to tell something to his troops and this was probably the only line he could through at them s, and hope that it would make some senesce to them, since prior party line was “we don’t invade anybody” “we don’t need anybody’s land” etc. Not that it helped a lot.
...and this detailed part:
Well it would be really strange if he called for partial or slight destruction.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#51

Post by Juha Tompuri » 18 May 2011, 08:10

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:
I'm not trying to convert you, just being interested on the facts, both military and political ones, as they here too go hand in hand.
Like the Soviet Kuusinen puppet government which replaced the Finnish legal government.
It was a political move to Estoniatize Finland, and to have similar complete control over Finland.
...and to remove Finland from the Soviet list of "potential attackers" for good.
Juha , you are entitled to your opinion, but as you surely know, all points you have made are debatable, and posts on these subject as make a rather large portion of Winter War section. Let’s not spill it in here.
Yes I understand, I have just been pointing out that the Soviet goals at Winter War were not that limited that at you posted at your initial post about the issue here.
I think that that point is now made clear enough.
Oleg Grigoryev wrote:
I actually ment the part that was left out between your quotes:…
Well he had to tell something to his troops and this was probably the only line he could through at them s, and hope that it would make some senesce to them, since prior party line was “we don’t invade anybody” “we don’t need anybody’s land” etc. Not that it helped a lot.
Well the intention to make political chages - freeing Finns from their leaders and the owner class - is quite clear there.

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:
...and this detailed part:
Well it would be really strange if he called for partial or slight destruction.
Well... if the goal would have been limited just to border changes, the total destruction would not have been neccessary.
Juha earlier wrote:Wonder what would have been the Finnish fate had it's army and navy being defeated/destroyed as planned?
Oleg Grigoryev earlier wrote:From the report of Commander in Chief of Leningrad Military District to the peoples Commissar of Defense -in regards to plan of defeat of land and naval forces of Finland. From October 29 1939/. This is the only reference in the high level documents that says anything about moving into Finland’s heartland
Oleg earlier wrote:Operational Directive by Peoples Commissar of defense dated by 16.11.1939 talks about developing offensive if situation permits towards Helsiki but once again does not set the capture of the city or occupation of the country as an objective.
Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Friendship
between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
and Finnish Democratic Republic

...Article VIII

The present Treaty shall enter into force on the day of it signing and is subject to subsequent ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in the possible shortest term in Helsinki - the capital of Finland.

Done in Moscow on December 2, 1939, in two languages, Russian and Finnish, both texts being equally authentic.

V.Molotov, O.Kuusinen
http://heninen.net/sopimus/1939_e.htm

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#52

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 18 May 2011, 10:06

I have just been pointing out that the Soviet goals at Winter War were not that limited that at you posted at your initial post about the issue here.
I think that that point is now made clear enough.
I am not really sure what issue that is. The point I was making is you are not going to find definitive description of the political goals in the military documents. You can look for signs and innuendoes and what else have you, to support your viewpoint, and that is fine. But ulitematelly, untill actual Soviet documents delaing political plannin surface- Politburo protocls or something of this nature, you will end up with bunch of educated guesses. Well eductaed but guesses non the less. The same goes for the oposing point o view. You say that Meretskov order was a sign that USSR wanted to take over Finland. Maybe. But then again maybe he was rationlized the war to his troops and motivate them for the war that was never popular among rank and file. Stlistically seems to be pretty standrad order, composed of bunch of clishes.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#53

Post by Juha Tompuri » 18 May 2011, 12:17

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:
I have just been pointing out that the Soviet goals at Winter War were not that limited that at you posted at your initial post about the issue here.
I think that that point is now made clear enough.
I am not really sure what issue that is.
The issue of honestly posting all the info availlable about Soviet plans (also the military ones that were made to acchieve the politial goals) related to this thread and claims made here.
Oleg Grigoryev wrote:The point I was making is you are not going to find definitive description of the political goals in the military documents.
As mentioned earlier the political documents are fine enough for me.
As an example the Molotov &co and their puppet made deal I posted at my previous post.
Image
Interesting sidenote that at the backgroud standing another of the signers of the already earlier mentioned Leningrad Military District order (just couple of days before this photo) for to arrive to Finland in order to free Finland from democracy.
http://heninen.net/sopimus/1939f_e.htm
Oleg Grigoryev wrote:You can look for signs and innuendoes
I think I don't have to reply to this one.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#54

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 18 May 2011, 20:04

The issue of honestly posting all the info availlable about Soviet plans (also the military ones that were made to acchieve the politial goals) related to this thread and claims made here.
Was there some dishonesty before? Getting bit personal are not we? Like I ve seen this dance before and I know hoe it is ending. You think that mentioning Molotov-Ribentrop on yet another Finland thread and posting a picture of signing, even though it has been discussed virtually to death, helps your theory well - by all means do it.
I think I don't have to reply to this one.
Sorry if I offended you; maybe I should have said clues. It seems to me, whatever the name is, that is exactly what you are doing. Obviously, if there was clear printed statements of Soviet intent to occupy Finland, we would not have to argue what exactly Meretskov meant by his order.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#55

Post by Juha Tompuri » 18 May 2011, 21:08

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:
The issue of honestly posting all the info availlable about Soviet plans (also the military ones that were made to acchieve the politial goals) related to this thread and claims made here.
Was there some dishonesty before?
No, but as you have better access to the Soviet documents I thought you would have posted more documents about the issue than you have done.
Like the ones I have posted here and for instance the ones from the 29th Nov-39 which we haven't seen here.
Yet.
Oleg Grigoryev wrote:Getting bit personal are not we?
No.
No need for that.
We can disagree about the facts, but there is no need to bring that to personal level.
Oleg Grigoryev wrote: You think that mentioning Molotov-Ribentrop on yet another Finland thread and posting a picture of signing, even though it has been discussed virtually to death, helps your theory well - by all means do it.
Of course MR-pact is relevant to the events that led to the Soviet invasion, but as helpful it was to the Soviet side, I think that issue can de discussed at another thread.
More interesting here is the "Molotov-Kuusinen pact" and it's exact wording.


Regards, Juha

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#56

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 18 May 2011, 22:23

No, but as you have better access to the Soviet documents I thought you would have posted more documents about the issue than you have done.
Like the ones I have posted here and for instance the ones from the 29th Nov-39 which we haven't seen here.
Yet.
I really have not followed the developments in this specific area that closely. I looked around for the last couple of days but I don’t see anything groundbreaking or fresh for that matter. That is why I used my old posts, since in my opinion nothing has changed dramatically.
No.
No need for that.
We can disagree about the facts, but there is no need to bring that to personal level.
I agree.
Of course MR-pact is relevant to the events that led to the Soviet invasion, but as helpful it was to the Soviet side, I think that issue can de discussed at another thread.
More interesting here is the "Molotov-Kuusinen pact" and it's exact wording.
Yes it is. I have not looked in this direction but I’ll check what is out there.

User avatar
John Hilly
Member
Posts: 2618
Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
Location: Tampere, Finland, EU

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#57

Post by John Hilly » 19 May 2011, 15:51

About 29.11.1939:
"In a directive to the officers on 29.11.1939, Leningrad Military District set – maybe to raise attacking spirit – still more stricter targets: to conquer Vyborg in four days and to arrive Helsinki in two weeks."

Source: Ohto Manninen, Miten Suomi valloitetaan: Puna-armeijan operaatiosuunnitelmat 1939-1944, Juva 2008. Page 32.

Regards
Juha-Pekka :milwink:
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 21:42

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#58

Post by Vaeltaja » 20 May 2011, 05:59

Philip S. Walker wrote:We need a reference to these plans and set a date on them.
All information from http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=9512326329 - which contains Finnish reprinting of most of the book (of the route descriptions and such). It also briefly describes where the document as a source was captured.
Book had been printed in Moscow (no month of the printed was found, title "Catalogue of March Routes"). It was picked up as a suvenier after battle of Suomussalmi (at or before, Suomussalmi, Salo (village?), January 1940) so it must have been printed and distributed before 44th and/or 163rd divisions started their march. Most likely source for it is a Soviet officer of 305th infantry regiment. From the markings of the book it appears to have been in limited circulation as it carried a separate ID number (ie. rare, secret or confidencial).
Philip S. Walker wrote:When were these goals set?
Again captured at Suomussalmi. It was the order of the day from Zelentshov to his troops on November 29. So it can't be determined accurately when the actual order was given. Just that it was given before the war started.
When borders of Sweden or Norway are reached they must not be violated in any manner. Members of Swedish or Norwegian Armies must be saluted when met. Discussions with them are forbidden.
The question of the motives behind the establishment of Kuusinen's government is one that has continued to intrigue historians. The decision to establish a 'People's Government' was ultimately Stalin's, and it has generally been interpreted as an attempt on the part of the Soviet Union to legitimize its attack in the eyes of Soviet citizens. Since a socialist country could not invade another country just like that, it was necessary to have a friendly government to ask for assistance.
Which is pretty much in line with what i described.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#59

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 20 May 2011, 07:35

Vaeltaja wrote:
Philip S. Walker wrote:We need a reference to these plans and set a date on them.
All information from http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=9512326329 - which contains Finnish reprinting of most of the book (of the route descriptions and such). It also briefly describes where the document as a source was captured.
Book had been printed in Moscow (no month of the printed was found, title "Catalogue of March Routes"). It was picked up as a suvenier after battle of Suomussalmi (at or before, Suomussalmi, Salo (village?), January 1940) so it must have been printed and distributed before 44th and/or 163rd divisions started their march. Most likely source for it is a Soviet officer of 305th infantry regiment. From the markings of the book it appears to have been in limited circulation as it carried a separate ID number (ie. rare, secret or confidencial).
Philip S. Walker wrote:When were these goals set?
Again captured at Suomussalmi. It was the order of the day from Zelentshov to his troops on November 29. So it can't be determined accurately when the actual order was given. Just that it was given before the war started.
When borders of Sweden or Norway are reached they must not be violated in any manner. Members of Swedish or Norwegian Armies must be saluted when met. Discussions with them are forbidden.
The question of the motives behind the establishment of Kuusinen's government is one that has continued to intrigue historians. The decision to establish a 'People's Government' was ultimately Stalin's, and it has generally been interpreted as an attempt on the part of the Soviet Union to legitimize its attack in the eyes of Soviet citizens. Since a socialist country could not invade another country just like that, it was necessary to have a friendly government to ask for assistance.
Which is pretty much in line with what i described.
just couple of posts above I posted my response in regards to this specific document
"Kemsk axis and Rebeloa axis – independent rifle corps ( the 163 RD belonged to this one -oleg). The goal is to defeat Finnish covering units along the Kemsk axis and Rebola axis, to take areas of Kayaani and Nurmes in order to deny advance of fresh enemy forces from the Uleaborg, capture of Uleaborg, with cooperation of our forces of Kandalaksha axis , being the final goal."


"9th Army (Duhanov; 122, 163, 54 RD) is to take care of its own flanks, and to defeat enemy forces, by advancing with main body in the direction of Kayaani, with goal of achieving the line Kemiyarvi-Kantiomiaki, and in shortest possible time take Uleaborg "


that was in perfect agreement with the main idea of operation: "
The main idea of the operation is to simultaneously attack Finnish territory on all directions in order to pull apart enemy grouping and in cooperation with VVS to inflict major defeat on Finnish army. The main body of our forces advancing along Vidicia axis and from Karelian peninsula is to defeat the main Finnish grouping in the area Sortavala, Vipuri, Keksgolm. …"

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 21:42

Re: Why did the Kremlin see Finland as a potential attacker?

#60

Post by Vaeltaja » 20 May 2011, 10:35

Assuming Soviet goals were as 'benign' as described then why did SU insist on pre Winter War negotiations that Finns would have to demolish all existing fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus?

Why did SU form a new people's republic effectively on the day the war began?

Why did SU claim at international forums that standing government of the Republic Finland was illegal and only legal government was the Soviet puppet government of Terijoki?

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”