The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

[Harri]

Yes, Epaminondas said it very well.

Except that Finnish "lumber mills" (for making explosives) and electric powerplants were basically the reason for the Winter War. They were needed by the Soviet war industry at Leningrad area. IIRC there were five pulp factories (Finns had to return their machines after the Winter War) on the ceded area and numerous powerplants. It was definately not only the question of land areas or "protection of Leningrad".

Finland was also a producer of copper, nickel, zinc, lead, molybdenium (Mätäsvaara at Lieksa since 1940) and iron, all highly needed metals during the war. Finland also produced minerals like carbonate and asbest.

Kolosjoki mines at Petsamo (since 1936) were not the only Finnish nickel mines. Since 1941 there was also Makola mine at Nivala but it wasn't nearly as rich as the Petsamo mines. Also lots of copper was get from Petsamo. No wonder in 1944 USSR "attached" Petsamo area are into it. In 1940 they couldn't do it because the mines were owned by a British - Canadian company.

---

OK. Gentlemen (?), I think we are already too far away from the topic now?

[Juha Tompuri]

4. Vyborg - Petrozavodsk operation (a conclusion from war of Finland).

That Soviet operation was a failure because the planned goals could not be reached.

The " 4th Stalin Impact" was the only one that didn't reach it's planned goals which were the destruction of Finnish Defence Forces, forcing Finland to surrender unconditionally and occupation of the country.

Regards, Juha

[Kunikov]

4. Vyborg - Petrozavodsk operation (a conclusion from war of Finland).

That Soviet operation was a failure because the planned goals could not be reached.

The " 4th Stalin Impact" was the only one that didn't reach it's planned goals which were the destruction of Finnish Defence Forces, forcing Finland to surrender unconditionally and occupation of the country.

Regards, Juha

Would you be able to supply these 'planned goals' in terms of a source?

[Juha Tompuri]

4. Vyborg - Petrozavodsk operation (a conclusion from war of Finland).

That Soviet operation was a failure because the planned goals could not be reached.

The " 4th Stalin Impact" was the only one that didn't reach it's planned goals which were the destruction of Finnish Defence Forces, forcing Finland to surrender unconditionally and occupation of the country.

Regards, Juha

Would you be able to supply these 'planned goals' in terms of a source?

From the destruction of Finnish Defence Forces Yuri Kilin, Ph.D. in History, Associate Professor, from the state university of Petrozavodsk gave several lectures at Ilomantsi, Finland, year 2001:

The goals of the massive attack (4th impact, JT)
The goal of the Leningrad Front right sector and Carelian Front southern sector masive attack June 1944 was the "total", that is, unconditional surrender of Finland,
That, however, didn't neccessary mean the total occupation of the country. The goal of the operation would be acchieved at Carelian Isthmus and at Olonets Carelia by swift encircling operations, by which the Finnish main forces would be encircled and beaten before their withdrawal to the rear defence positions,

At the main sector of the atack, Carelian Isthmus, the Leningrad Front 21th and 23th Army forces "the Hammer", should in time of two weeeks break through all th Finnish defence lines, reaching the overall line of Hamina-Lappeenranta by 26th June. That would lenghten the Finnish lines of defence and nullify the obvious Finnish troop transports from the E-Carelia (Olonets, JT) to the Carelian Isthmus.

According to the plans, the Carelian Front Soviet troops from Olonets would attack as "the sickle" with comparatively modest forces from River Svir to the Medvežegorsk level, their task being to pursuit the Finnish forces.
Untill the end of summer the Carelian Front should occupy the whole E-Finland and parts of Central Finland.

http://www.joensuu.fi/mekri/sotahistoria/index.htm

The demand of unconditional surrender (which 1944 only could have been acchieved through the destruction of Finnish military strenght) has earlier been discussed here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &highlight

Occupation would have been the result of an unconditional surrender, also (if I understand correctly) Yuri mentions it as a goal here:

Finland from occupation by armies of Red Army was saved not by the Finnish army, and the clever politics of the Finnish politicians which have replaced president Rjuti.
These clever Finnish politicians have found in themselves forces to tear with Germany.
Stalin was not only Supreme Commander in Chief of armed forces of the USSR, simultaneously he was the main politician of the USSR.
It is known, that political purposes are always put above the military purposes.

Regards, Juha

[Kunikov]

But, as quoted, unconditional surrender didn't mean 'occupation' of Finland.

[Juha Tompuri]

But, as quoted, unconditional surrender didn't mean 'occupation' of Finland.

That, however, didn't necessary mean the total occupation of the country.

(emphasis on mine)

8. Since the moment of signing this document until when the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces has taken under its control all communications connections in Finland, all radio broadcasts in Finnish territory are forbidden, and Finnish telegraph, telephone, and radio connections to other countries will be cut off.

9. The Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces will secure the transportations of military troops of the U.S.S.R. in Finnish territory by rail and by other means of transportation and the needed supplies to the troops.

10. To fulfil the terms of surrender and to secure the interests of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces – by its own military forces and at its own discretion – will occupy partially or fully the territory of Finland, her harbours, the archipelago of Åland, and the islands of the Gulf of Finland.
The Government of the U.S.S.R. will make use of all the rights of an occupying power in the occupied territories of Finland. The Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces will publish its own orders and directives. The Finnish Government and the Finnish people will by all means try to contribute to the execution of these orders and directives. To serve this aim, the Finnish Government will without delay give an order to all the authorities of the central and local government, to the judicial system, public organisations, and all civil servants to remain in their previous positions, to obey orders unconditionally, and to carry out their duties conscientiously, until the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces gives its directives.

11. In the occupied territories of Finland the maintenance of order and peace will be the responsibility of the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces. In the unoccupied Finnish territories the above will be the responsibility of the Finnish Government.

12. The Finnish Government will commit itself to carrying out such legislative and other measures, as deemed necessary by the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces in fulfilling the terms of this document.

13. The Finnish Government will cover all expenses of the occupation.

(emphasis on mine )

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

Regards, Juha

[Yuri]

But, as quoted, unconditional surrender didn't mean 'occupation' of Finland.

That, however, didn't necessary mean the total occupation of the country.

(emphasis on mine)

8. Since the moment of signing this document until when the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces has taken under its control all communications connections in Finland, all radio broadcasts in Finnish territory are forbidden, and Finnish telegraph, telephone, and radio connections to other countries will be cut off.

9. The Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces will secure the transportations of military troops of the U.S.S.R. in Finnish territory by rail and by other means of transportation and the needed supplies to the troops.

10. To fulfil the terms of surrender and to secure the interests of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces – by its own military forces and at its own discretion – will occupy partially or fully the territory of Finland, her harbours, the archipelago of Åland, and the islands of the Gulf of Finland.
The Government of the U.S.S.R. will make use of all the rights of an occupying power in the occupied territories of Finland. The Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces will publish its own orders and directives. The Finnish Government and the Finnish people will by all means try to contribute to the execution of these orders and directives. To serve this aim, the Finnish Government will without delay give an order to all the authorities of the central and local government, to the judicial system, public organisations, and all civil servants to remain in their previous positions, to obey orders unconditionally, and to carry out their duties conscientiously, until the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces gives its directives.

11. In the occupied territories of Finland the maintenance of order and peace will be the responsibility of the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces. In the unoccupied Finnish territories the above will be the responsibility of the Finnish Government.

12. The Finnish Government will commit itself to carrying out such legislative and other measures, as deemed necessary by the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces in fulfilling the terms of this document.

13. The Finnish Government will cover all expenses of the occupation.

(emphasis on mine )

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

Regards, Juha

In Russian a word the Document has the general (universal) value.
Any concrete document has the name.
Under the maintenance of the text of the document on which you have given the reference, it should refer to so: « Act of unconditional surrender of Finland».
It is improbable, however it is probable, that to this document could give one of following names:
«The contract about unconditional surrender of Finland»
«The report on unconditional surrender of Finland»
«The agreement on unconditional surrender of Finland»
«The resolution on unconditional surrender of Finland»
«The pact about unconditional surrender of Finland»


However, if the document is named as at you:
«The document on unconditional surrender of Finland» it is possible with probability of 99,99 % to speak that before us the forgery.
And this forgery was cooked up by the person well knowing Russian,
However, this person, most likely, the foreigner.
I shall repeat still time. The word the Document never is present at the name of the concrete document. At the name of the document can be present words: the agreement, the pact, the certificate, act of the resolution and so on. The concrete document necessarily has the own name.

Besides the person cooked up this document has admitted one more gross blunder.
This person, probably, does not know, that the USSR signed all agreements on capitulation (about a time armistice) with the countries of the Axis (Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary) for and on behalf of all allied states with which this member of the Axis was at war. In case of with Finland the USSR have been obliged to sign « the Agreement on capitulation of Finland (or « the Certificate about capitulation of Finland ») not only on its own behalf, but also for and on behalf of British Empire.

From its part England and the USA have signed the agreement on an armistice with Italy for and on behalf of the USSR.

Then, in the document shown by you near to the name there is a word "PROJECT".
Any project of the document necessarily has an author. However, in the project of the document presented by you the name of its author is not specified.
Is not present at you and the instruction on that place where this project of the document with such charming name «the Document on unconditional surrender of Finland » is kept.

If you cannot answer all four set questions it will mean, that you have shown a forgery:
1. Why this document carries such name «the Document on unconditional surrender of Finland».
2. Who the author of the project of this document.
3. Why in the text of the document of the USSR enters only on its own behalf why in the text there is no mention of British Empire.
4. Specify a place of storage of the document in archive:
- The name of archive,
- Number of fund
- Number the inventory,
- Number of a folder (or a file),
- Numbers of pages.
/
udachi / Good Lock

Yuri

P. S.

The Russian person, those more the official of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs never will write such phrase what is present at yours «The Document on unconditional surrender of Finland».
The text in Russian

…
3. Ôèíëÿíäñêîå Ãëàâíîå Êîìàíäîâàíèå íåìåäëåííî ïðåäîñòàâëÿåò Ñîâåòñêîìó Âîåííîìó Êîìàíäîâàíèþ ïîëíóþ èíôîðìàöèþ î ñîñòàâå è ðàñïîëîæåíèè…

The text in English

…
3. The finnish Main Command immediately gives to the Soviet Military Command the full information on structure and an arrangement …

Conclusion - You show a forgery.

[Harri]

Whatever the original Soviet document is called, who made it or where it is now doesn't change the fact that USSR prepared the occupation of Finland also in 1944 (there was also earlier plans 1939 and 1940). There are also other proves like the order of future attack goals which was given to Soviet troops. If the goals had been achieved why Soviet troops were given further goals like Kymijoki river and Lappeenranta which were far away from the line where Soviet troops were stopped and also inside the border of 1940? Really good "explanations" are needed.

Despite of that (because none of us know the discussions among Soviet leaders about Finland) Soviet troops could not achieve the given goals and thus fulfill their mission. Therefore their operation was a failure and it was stopped/cancelled. Later, only partly because of the Soviet attack, the peace negotiations between USSR and Finland were started. They led to a truce which started on 4.9.1944. The overall situation in Europe was much more decisive, not any attacks or their results.

It seems more likely the "limited goals" and "getting Finland out of war" explanations were invented to explain the failure of the Soviet plans. That kinds of explanations (including the "security of Leningrad", "Mannerheim line equal to Maginot line" etc.) were invented also during and after the Winter War.

[Yuri]

It seems more likely the "limited goals" and "getting Finland out of war" explanations were invented to explain the failure of the Soviet plans. That kinds of explanations (including the "security of Leningrad", "Mannerheim line equal to Maginot line" etc.) were invented also during and after the Winter War.

It seems to more probable, that for concealment of weakness of the arguments the Finnish side invents a forgery.

[Juha Tompuri]

In Russian a word the Document has the general (universal) value.
Any concrete document has the name.
Under the maintenance of the text of the document on which you have given the reference, it should refer to so: « Act of unconditional surrender of Finland».
It is improbable, however it is probable, that to this document could give one of following names:
«The contract about unconditional surrender of Finland»
«The report on unconditional surrender of Finland»
«The agreement on unconditional surrender of Finland»
«The resolution on unconditional surrender of Finland»
«The pact about unconditional surrender of Finland»

Then, in the document shown by you near to the name there is a word "PROJECT".
Any project of the document necessarily has an author. However, in the project of the document presented by you the name of its author is not specified.
Is not present at you and the instruction on that place where this project of the document with such charming name «the Document on unconditional surrender of Finland » is kept.

Yes it's a draft document made if the Stalin's 4th impact would have reached it's planned goals.

However, if the document is named as at you:
«The document on unconditional surrender of Finland» it is possible with probability of 99,99 % to speak that before us the forgery.
And this forgery was cooked up by the person well knowing Russian,
However, this person, most likely, the foreigner.
I shall repeat still time. The word the Document never is present at the name of the concrete document. At the name of the document can be present words: the agreement, the pact, the certificate, act of the resolution and so on. The concrete document necessarily has the own name.

Besides the person cooked up this document has admitted one more gross blunder.
This person, probably, does not know, that the USSR signed all agreements on capitulation (about a time armistice) with the countries of the Axis (Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary) for and on behalf of all allied states with which this member of the Axis was at war. In case of with Finland the USSR have been obliged to sign « the Agreement on capitulation of Finland (or « the Certificate about capitulation of Finland ») not only on its own behalf, but also for and on behalf of British Empire.
From its part England and the USA have signed the agreement on an armistice with Italy for and on behalf of the USSR.

The Russian person, those more the official of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs never will write such phrase what is present at yours «The Document on unconditional surrender of Finland».
The text in Russian

…
3. Ôèíëÿíäñêîå Ãëàâíîå Êîìàíäîâàíèå íåìåäëåííî ïðåäîñòàâëÿåò Ñîâåòñêîìó Âîåííîìó Êîìàíäîâàíèþ ïîëíóþ èíôîðìàöèþ î ñîñòàâå è ðàñïîëîæåíèè…

The text in English

…
3. The finnish Main Command immediately gives to the Soviet Military Command the full information on structure and an arrangement …

Conclusion - You show a forgery

I hope I don't sound too unpolite here, but about judging the the authentity of that draft document I'll trust there more to people who have found and seen it than those who haven't.
I think this draft document falls to the same category of the "embarrasing evidence" like the documents of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, start of Winter War (Mainila shots), steamer Metallist case, Katyn etc where the Soviets/Russians first denied/blamed others and hide documents, but eventually the truth has won.

If you cannot answer all four set questions it will mean, that you have shown a forgery:
1. Why this document carries such name «the Document on unconditional surrender of Finland».
2. Who the author of the project of this document.
3. Why in the text of the document of the USSR enters only on its own behalf why in the text there is no mention of British Empire.
4. Specify a place of storage of the document in archive:
- The name of archive,
- Number of fund
- Number the inventory,
- Number of a folder (or a file),
- Numbers of pages.

I don't have that book that contained that draft document with me at the moment. I'll post more about it when I'll get the book.
The demands above you have set to me, are quite tough to fulfil as at the western literature seldom, if ever, the sources of Soviet/Russian documents are listed at that accuracy you demand.
While waiting more info about the draft documet, you can yourself check the Podolsk archives about info of the same subject. If you dont't know where to look there, I'm sure you can always contact knowledged countrymen of yours, like Professor Kilin.

Regards, Juha

[szopen]

P. S.

Once again.
Stavka was not engaged in planning of revolutions in Finland or still somewhere.
If you look attentively can notice, that in the countries of the East Europe communists have received authority already after the Red Army has left territory of these states.
Participation of Red Army in becoming communistic modes in the countries of the East Europe and on the Balkans is a myth what exist not a little.

Yuri, ARE YOU SERIOUS? I am from Poland. And in Poland Red Army moved out in early 90s.
What's more, in 1945 and later communist regime was installed with the help of communist armiers (both Polish formed by Russians communists and Red Army) including some NKVD batallions, at cost of some 100.000 of murdered, arrested and deported.

[Harri]

It seems more likely the "limited goals" and "getting Finland out of war" explanations were invented to explain the failure of the Soviet plans. That kinds of explanations (including the "security of Leningrad", "Mannerheim line equal to Maginot line" etc.) were invented also during and after the Winter War.

It seems to more probable, that for concealment of weakness of the arguments the Finnish side invents a forgery.

While you state "Finnish side" has made some forgeries you without doubt can show us all the proves also, don't you?

[Victor]

szopen, please stick to the original topic and leave the post-war period for the appropriate section.

[Janne]

It would indeed be polite to be a little less quick in accusing anyone of forging documents. In my humble opinion Yuri could well have stopped to ask himself why any respectable historian, Finnish or not, would resort to forging a document relating to a minor aspect of the Secod Worl War - in the 1990s, when it would not make or break his career, when it would not tip the scales of foreign policy one way or the other, when the contents of the document could be contested by arguing about its correct interpretation, and when such a forgery would with the greatest certainty be almost instantly discovered!

If Yuri's conclusion wasn't so premature and his boldness - with all apologies . wasn't so ridiculous, it would, I must say, offend not only Professor Turtola who was present during its discovery in October 1993, but also myself personally as someone who cannot avoid presenting the "Finnish side". It's one thing for Yuri to state with conviction that the "Finnish side" is wrong or mistaken - even when he backs it with what I consider to be errors of misunderstanding or ill faith and half-truths - but quite another to even suggest that the "Finnish side" has resorted to forgery of Soviet documents.

Yrui, if you wish, you can take the time and trouble and go to the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation and look for the Finnish fond, f. 0135, op. 28, papka 155, d. 8, l. 8 and 9-20. What you will find are the covering letter from secretary of the Voroshilov commission S.T. Barazov to M.G. Gribanov in the Vyshinski secretariat, no KV-264s, 26.6.1944, and the "Dokument o bezogorotshnoi kapitulatsii Finljandii".

You can then personally decide whether it is a forgery and in that case ponder who did the forgery and when. You can also ask yourself why the Russian historians who have read of it have not had the same presence of mind as you had to immediately discover its true nature.

Pardon the tone of this post, but these kind of accusations, open or veiled, are not taken lightly. It would have been far more nicer of you to simply dismiss the document as a draft drawn up for some eventuality which never materialized in 1944 or something like that.

Best wishes nevertheless,
Janne

[Juha Tompuri]

Yuri, if you wish, you can take the time and trouble and go to the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation and look for the Finnish fond, f. 0135, op. 28, papka 155, d. 8, l. 8 and 9-20. What you will find are the covering letter from secretary of the Voroshilov commission S.T. Barazov to M.G. Gribanov in the Vyshinski secretariat, no KV-264s, 26.6.1944, and the "Dokument o bezogorotshnoi kapitulatsii Finljandii".

Thank You Janne

Regards, Juha

P.S. Barazov (Bazarov?)