Questions about Division J

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Mikko H.
Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: 07 May 2003, 11:19
Location: Turku, Finland

#16

Post by Mikko H. » 19 Feb 2007, 21:22

Lt/Capt. E. Pyyry was the engineer commander. Division J had only one commander during its existence, Colonel/Major General Väinö Palojärvi.

larth
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 14 Feb 2007, 01:15

#17

Post by larth » 19 Feb 2007, 23:11

Mikko H. wrote:Lt/Capt. E. Pyyry was the engineer commander. Division J had only one commander during its existence, Colonel/Major General Väinö Palojärvi.
Mea Culpa, I missed that it was a page dedicated to the engineers...


User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#18

Post by Harri » 20 Feb 2007, 11:39

http://www.metsapirtti.net/artikkelit/p ... anka03.htm
"Retki tuli suorittaa 11.3.-16.3. välisenä aikana. Käskyn allekirjoittajina olivat eversti L.V. Hannelius ja majuri U.S. Haahti, divisioonan vs tai lomittava komentaja ja esikuntapäällikkö. Puroman ollessa lomalla antoi rykmentin komentajana toiminut eversti Wirkkunen tehtävän Koskimaan pataljoonalle."
There is mentioned that in March 1942 Col. Lennart Hannelius would have been the Acting Commander of the Division J. That is new to me. Col. Albert Puroma's regiment (JR 12) was also led by an Acting Commander Col. (or Lt.Col.?) Wirkkunen.

BTW did you know that Col. Hannelius was a world class shooter? He had won a bronze medal in "Rapid-Fire Pistol 20 shots competition" in the Paris Olympic Games in 1924! He was also a Vice Chairman of the International Shooting Union (I.S.U) * in the 1930's.

(* Union International de Tir (UIT) in French, nowadays International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF)).

----

3rd Division (3.D) was at Uhtua direction south from Division J and German SS-Division "Nord". During the earlier mentioned period SissiP 3, which was actually corps troops of the III Army Corps (III AK), was subordinated either to 3.D or III AK. I don't remember what was the task of the SissiP 3 in winter, spring and early summer 1942 but IIRC it didn't participate in the battles of Division J which was at Kiestinki area.

----

I don't know for sure why the letter "J" was retained in the name of the Division J. Neither Martti Turtola don't mention about it in his book on Jussi Turtola. Originally the groups were to be named as "Group T" (Turtola) and "Groups F" (Fagernäs) but to avoid possible confusions names eventually became "Group J" (Jussi Turtola) and "Group F" (Frans Uno Fagernäs).

Jussi Turtola was an excellent officer and without doubt should have been promoted to full Colonel when the Group J was expanded to Division J. Lt.Col. Turtola was although returned to command his own regiment (JR 53) and Artillery Commander of III AK Col. Karl Henrik Alexander Schreck replaced him temporarily until Col. Palojärvi arrived. That was a stupid decision because Turtola was a much more experienced officer. We can only guess the actual reasons behind this arrangement but most likely there were some sort of personal conflicts between officers.
Last edited by Harri on 21 Feb 2007, 11:16, edited 2 times in total.

larth
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 14 Feb 2007, 01:15

#19

Post by larth » 20 Feb 2007, 19:05

Harri,

Thanks a lot! Then that was cleared.
Harri wrote:ussi Turtola was an excellent officer and without doubt should have been promoted to full Colonel when the Group J was expanded to Division J. Lt.Col. Turtola was although returned to command his own regiment (JR 53) and Artillery Commander of III AK Col. Karl Henrik Alexander Schreck replaced him temporarily until Col. Palojärvi arrived. That was a stupid decision because Turtola was a much more experienced officer.
We can only guess the actual reasons but most likely there were some sort of personal conflicts between officers behind this arrangement.
Do you have a date for the decision?

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#20

Post by Harri » 21 Feb 2007, 11:12

Col. H. Schreck took the command of Group J on 8.8.1941. On 14.8.1941 * Group J was officially re-named to a temporary Division J (Divisioona J, Div.J). Basically Group J became Division J when Col. Palojärvi arrived and took the command.

* There are also other dates available for that change (it is mostly told to happen "in mid-August"). I don't remember when the order for the changing of name was given.

----

Little about the officers. Dosent, Dr. Martti Turtola (a nephew of Lt.Col. Jussi Turtola) in his book tells (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jussi Turtola had been the best officer in his course in Military Academy while Henrik Schreck who had been in the very same course hardly passed it. Schreck was an artillery officer (he had commanded also anti-aircraft troops) while Turtola was an infantry officer who had worked in training duties, in Civil Guard and in the Finnish Supreme HQ during the Winter War. He had not led troops during the Winter War which was seen negative by many.

Jussi Turtola was killed in action on 29.8.1941 and was posthumously promoted to Colonel on 30.8. Earlier his superior Maj.Gen. Hj. Siilasvuo had accused him and his officers as cowards in a telephone conversation. Turtola had replied: "Yes Sir, we can surely also fall here."

User avatar
jdoe
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 02 Jul 2005, 23:33
Location: Oulu, Finland

#21

Post by jdoe » 10 May 2007, 06:40

Probably the letter "J" in the name was retained in homage to Jussi Turtola. He was very much appreciated by practically everyone else but his superior, Siilasvuo.

I would translate his reply more loosely; "Yes Sir, why don't we all just die here!" as an angry response to his superiors unrealistic demands and accusations.

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 09:45
Location: Finland

#22

Post by JariL » 10 May 2007, 08:39

Hi,

I don't think that it was a question of non appreciation or lack of trust and Siilasvuo was certainly did not think that Turtola could really fullfill his orders. It was more a question of Siilavuo being himslef between the rock (Mannerheim) and hard place (Dietl) trying to stage something that looked like he was doing his best to advance when in reality he was supposed to stay put. Siilasvuo's bad temper just went down the chain of command and his subordinates who naturally did not have a clue on what was going on thought that their commander had totally lost it. Add to this big losses, general tiredness, bad conditions etc. and you get reactions like Turtola's practical suicide and colonel Palojärvis depression. Wolf Halsti (captain at the time of the events) has described the process very well in his memoirs, especially what comes to his own superior colonel Palojärvi who also felt that Siilasvuo was requesting too much, but he also tells about colonel Turtola. Halsti also tells that he had a confidential discussion with Siilasvuo which revealed to him the conditions under which Siilasvuo had to operate. But he could not and obviosuly did not share his information with the other officers. After the war Halsti asked from Palojärvi that if he felt that Siilasvuo was giving too demanding orders why didn't he confront Siilavuo? Palojärvi answered that his uppbringing was that of a soldier and soldiers obey and do not question orders. Halsti was obvioulsy not made out of the same wood as he did ask and also got an answer.


Best regards,

Jari

User avatar
jdoe
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 02 Jul 2005, 23:33
Location: Oulu, Finland

#23

Post by jdoe » 10 May 2007, 08:50

Halsti was a different kind of officer altogether. Not in a bad way, of course!

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#24

Post by Harri » 10 May 2007, 10:24

JariL wrote:I don't think that it was a question of non appreciation or lack of trust and Siilasvuo was certainly did not think that Turtola could really fullfill his orders. It was more a question of Siilavuo being himslef between the rock (Mannerheim) and hard place (Dietl) trying to stage something that looked like he was doing his best to advance when in reality he was supposed to stay put.
I think you mean Generaloberst Nikolaus von Falkenhorst? Gen. Eduard Dietl took the command of German troops in Finland on 14 January 1942.

I agree Siilasvuo's situation was not really enviable. I have thought who else would have been better but did not find any more suitable.
JariL wrote:Siilasvuo's bad temper just went down the chain of command and his subordinates who naturally did not have a clue on what was going on thought that their commander had totally lost it. Add to this big losses, general tiredness, bad conditions etc. and you get reactions like Turtola's practical suicide and colonel Palojärvis depression.
I think Turtola was such an intelligent officer he would have understood if Siilasvuo had told him about his tricky situation. But seemingly personal relationships between Turtola and Siilasvuo were too bad since the beginning for a confidental conversation. Dr. Turtolas book gives a rather bad view on Siilasvuo in this respect. Was it really so is another question.
JariL wrote:Wolf Halsti (captain at the time of the events) has described the process very well in his memoirs, especially what comes to his own superior colonel Palojärvi who also felt that Siilasvuo was requesting too much, but he also tells about colonel Turtola. Halsti also tells that he had a confidential discussion with Siilasvuo which revealed to him the conditions under which Siilasvuo had to operate. But he could not and obviosuly did not share his information with the other officers. After the war Halsti asked from Palojärvi that if he felt that Siilasvuo was giving too demanding orders why didn't he confront Siilavuo? Palojärvi answered that his uppbringing was that of a soldier and soldiers obey and do not question orders. Halsti was obvioulsy not made out of the same wood as he did ask and also got an answer.
Perhaps so. That would mean the view given by Dr. Turtola in his book is at least partly wrong. Dr. Turtola mostly criticizes that Siilasvuo tied the hands of Lt.Col. Turtola and started commanding even individual companies over him.

My personal theory is as follows. Most commanders could select their subordinates. Obviously Lt.Col. Turtola was not selected and accepted by Siilasvuo. Because of that Siilasvuo used all means to show to the Finnish Supreme HQ that another officer would have to take the command. I doubt neither Lt.Col. Oras Selinheimo (temporary Commmander of JR 53) could have been any better because he had failed already in the defence of Bay of Viborg in 1940.

When Group J asked for an assisting General Staff Officer the former Commander of the Finnish Aviation Forces Lt.Col. A[a]rne Somersalo was sent. His official task was to be "Commander's Assistant" of Group J but he was soon ordered to command a battle group and he was killed in action on 17.8.1941. Dr. Turtola meantion in his book that there were so many Lt.Cols in Group J that "their heads nearly clacked together". Whose idea was to sent this old officer (older than Turtola) is unclear to me.

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 09:45
Location: Finland

#25

Post by JariL » 10 May 2007, 14:03

Hi Harri,

What was I thinking, Falkenhorst not Dietl. Thanks!

The thing is that if we believe what for example Halsti says about Mannerheim hitting the brake and Germans hitting the gas pedal then there was no way Siilasvuo could have told about this to Turtola or anybody else whom he had to press to fight on. I am sure that Turtola would have understood but how many can share a secret before it is not a secret anymore? There is also the possibility that Turtola was the kind of man that would not have accepted what was going on but would have refused to obey in order to spare his mens lives. Siilasvuo could not afford that to happen and even managing things behind the back of Turtola was perhaps preferable to telling the truth. It is also possible that personal relations were strained for other reasons as Martti Turtola claims but somehow I don't think that it is the only explanation. I would buy it if Siilasvuo's behaviour had not been similar/similarish towards other officers as well.

Halsti on the other hand seems to have had a direct line to Siilasvuo already from previous. Later on the two men had some dealings with each other for example concerning a German liquor load that was accidentally sent to the wrong address and which Halsti secured to Siilasvuo. According to Halsti when he told about the treasure to Siilasvuo he told Halsti to find a new job if the cognag was not already in a secure place. And it was not a coincidence that Halsti's JR 11 was part of Siilasvuo's force when Finns had to drive Germans out of Lapland. Siilasvuo felt that he could trust Halsti and so he got information others did not.

I believe Somersalo's death is described by Halsti too. Somersalo was ordered to assist a German flanking attack and he came to the jump off point in full parade uniform with red stripes on his trousers. He was promptly shot by a Russian sniper almost right after Germans started their advance. Was this one more suicide?

Regards,

Jari

User avatar
jdoe
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 02 Jul 2005, 23:33
Location: Oulu, Finland

#26

Post by jdoe » 10 May 2007, 14:53

It strongly appeares to be so. Somersalo must have felt betrayed by his superiors when he was discharged. Now he had the chance to get the warrior's death, and he took it. I've got the impression, he was very romantic person (not in the simple term) so this kind of choice and death would fit him pretty well. I also happen to now some people how know some people, who knew some people ;) and I've heard that Somersalo wasn't quite "right in the head" anymore in 1941. Has to do with some other things in his life.

No one can deny or should forget his accomplishments and efforts in building our Air Force, practically from scratch. He wasn't the first commander, but the first to keep the office for longer than few months ;)

P.S. Of course the fact that Bobi Sivén was his brother and committed suicide to make a political statement, might have something to do with Somersalo's death... They didn't die too far from each other (!)

ML
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 08 Apr 2005, 09:34
Location: Finland

#27

Post by ML » 10 May 2007, 15:50

P.S. Of course the fact that Bobi Sivén was his brother and committed suicide to make a political statement, might have something to do with Somersalo's death... They didn't die too far from each other (!)
I think Lt.Col. Paavo Susitaival was Bobi Sivén's (only?) brother.

User avatar
jdoe
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 02 Jul 2005, 23:33
Location: Oulu, Finland

#28

Post by jdoe » 11 May 2007, 01:21

True. Sorry, my mistake :(

larth
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 14 Feb 2007, 01:15

Re: Questions about Division J

#29

Post by larth » 27 Jul 2009, 00:51

In Kampf unter dem Nordlicht (Franz Schreiber) he notes that during the Russian attack in April / May 1942 was the responsibility for the defence on both sides of the road to north given to Division J on 28th of April. Is there any info on which unit(s) of Div J this could be?

The http://www.metsapirtti.net/artikkelit/p ... anka03.htm says:
Toukokuun 3. päivänä aamuvarhaisella oli hyörinää Suurkarin pataljoonan yksiköissä. Eilen oli tullut käsky koota kamppeet ja siirtyä Palojärven reserviksi Jeletintien varteen. Lähtö ei ollut erityisen mieluisaa. Oli totuttu suhteellisen mukavaan korsuelämään. Iso-Lakijärven pohjoispuolelta saapui lohkoa tukkimaan Tukkimäen pataljoona (III/JR 12). Vain III-pataljoonan 7. komppania (Arvi Ahtiainen: oma komppaniani) jäi entisiin asemiinsa Lakijärvelle. Siirtymään joutuneiden keskuudessa kuului nurinaa.
Suurkarin jänkäjääkärit olivat jo ennen puoltapäivää leiriytyneet uuteen paikkaansa Kiestingistä 6 km pohjoiseen, Jeletintien länsipuolelle. Tuolla alueella he joutuivat yllättäen taisteluun noin 40-miehisen vihollispartion kanssa, siihen valmistautumattomina, yksiköiden ollessa vielä koossa. Kaatuneita tuli 6 miestä ja haavoittuneita 11. Vihollinen katosi suojaan sen sileän tien.
The dates seem to fit so could these be the units?

At the start of May was two tanks and the Finnish btn Walkonen sent by the Corps to lead the defense. What kind of unit was this btn and did come from direction of Kuusamo or from the Louhi direction?

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Re: Questions about Division J

#30

Post by Harri » 29 Jul 2009, 14:19

If you mean the road Kiestinki - Ahvenlahti to the north then the first Finnish unit there was IV /11th Brigade (Capt. J. Maristo WIA, Lt Hyttinen (acting), later Capt. C. Palmroth) that started its attack against the flank of the Soviet forces west from lake Ylä-Mustajärvi. This took place after 28.4.1942.

http://www.pohjanprikaatinkilta.fi/PohP ... t/JR11.htm
Huhtikuun 24. päivänä 1942 lähtivät neuvostojoukot vahvoin voimin liikkeelle äärimmäisellä vasemmalla siivellä Ylä-Mustajärven pohjoispuolella, missä oli vain suomalaisten varmistuselimiä. Puolustusasemassa vasemmalla ollut SS-Divisioona Nord muutti nopeasti ryhmitystään ja miehitti Jarosjärven - järvi 75:n linjan, jossa se 28.4. alkaen torjui vihollisen hyökkäykset. III Armeijakunta ryhtyi heti irrottamaan voimia Ahvenlahden - Kiestingin tien sulkemiseksi. Ensimmäisenä ulkopuolisena vahvennuksena saapui kapteeni Mariston IV/11.Prikaati, joka 26.4. sai tehtäväkseen hyökätä Ylä-Mustajärven länsipuolitse vihollisen kylkeen. Hyökkäys epäonnistui voimien vähyyden takia; lisäksi osui kranaattikeskitys käskynjaolla olleeseen upseeriryhmään, jolloin pataljoonankomentaja ja kuusi muuta upseeria haavoittuivat. Vihollisen painostaessa edestä ja uhatessa samalla sivustassakin vetäytyi pataljoona luutnantti Hyttisen johdolla ja ryhmittyi puolustukseen Jarosjärven itäpään tasalle.
Capt. P. Valkonen led III Battalion / 11th Brigade (formed from Infantry Regiment 11).

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”