Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.

Skip to content

Finnish war goals

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri

Postby Harri on 31 May 2004 17:38

Wasa wrote:Of course Finland would have liked to capitalize on Hitler´s triumphs, and I see nothing odd about that.


No, maybe we would have liked to capitalize our own triumphs but Hitler's ones were not our business... :)

To me is quite clear that because Germans attacked from the north towards Kola Peninsula they for sure would not have given that area for us. Plans, fantacies and wishes are totally different than the real goals.

Wasa wrote:What bothers me is the distinction finns always want to do between "regular" Axis nations and themselves. Even if finns scholars sometimes refers to Finland as co-belligerent so for all practical purposes should Finland be treated the same way as Hungary, Roumania, Slowakia and the rest of the Axis powers..


That is not our problem. Finland has since the beginning considered itself more a co-belligerent than an ally of Germany. And that has been said clearly. See for example from the thread "Finland and Russia" what Finnish Gen. Tuompo thought about Germans already in 1941. Later Finns were all the time afraid of Germans coup attemps. I have said many times that personally I'm not against if Finland is called an "Axis nation".

Finland was rather cautious towards Germany because it didn't officially help us during Winter War (individual Germans did help) and because at the beginning of Continuation War it became evident that Germans only used us and told us many lies (for example about negotiations between USSR and Germany in June 1941). Gen. Tuompo mentions these negotiations only a few days before the launching of Barbarossa.

If Finland would be a full German ally we for sure would have signed an agreement, partisipated in planning of Barbarossa from the start and attacked earlier. Finnish initial grouping was defensive and all sea mining operations were defensive. Germany had promised to help defending Finland if USSR attacks. Meeting that expected attack was our initial goal in war. Eventually it came only from the air during the early days of Barbarossa which was the de facto reason why Finland joined war on German side.

Jari explained again so well many Wasa's questioning points that I have nothing more to add.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 3767
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Postby Mek on 31 May 2004 22:46

Hi,

I very much agree with Harri.

Also I think there are more facts to support Finlands
co-belingerency than an alliance. I even think
Finland would've rather wanted support from
France or Britain, but.. France had fallen, and
I think Finnish goverment at that time thought
that Germany is really going win the war. The western
allies were too far and too weak, so it was natural
choice to turn towards Germany try get some support
incase of another Soviet Union agression against Finland.

So we were not puppets, nor occupied and we had our own
goals as stated in this thread, and did not endorse
Nazi ideology nor was there any official agreement
signed with Germany, Finnish Jewish peoples rights
were respected and they fought in Finnish army, and
we were democratic country then and we're one
even now, and that Continuation war was continuation
of winter war. Doubtful Continuation war would've
happened if winter war would've never happened.
Can the other Axis allies say the same things?

Regards,
-Pete

Mek
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 12 Aug 2003 23:07
Location: Finland

Postby JariL on 01 Jun 2004 08:33

<What bothers me is the distinction finns always want to do <between "regular" Axis nations and themselves. Even if finns scholars <sometimes refers to Finland as co-belligerent so for all practical <purposes should Finland be treated the same way as Hungary, <Roumania, Slowakia and the rest of the Axis powers..

Hi Wasa,

If we look at things "after the fact" then Finland was certainly able to make a difference between her fate and that of the other nations fighting on the axis side. Finland avoided Soviet occupation for a number of reasons, one of then being the heavy battles in summer 1944. But there were other factors as well like the fact that USA, Britain and SU all agreed in Teheran in 1943 that unconditional surrender would not be expected from Finland. This was a deviation from the stated policy applied to other axis nations. Practical importance of the deviation was naturally much smaller than its conceptual importance.

In my opinion there were two factors that separated Finland from the other axis nations. First was the military command structure. Germans offered Mannerheim command of all of German troops in Finland on several occasions but he refused because accepting would have made him subordinate to Hitler. This was to be avoided at any cost. All other axis nations had their troops sooner or later subordinated to German high command if they fought at the same front with Germans.

The other separating factor was the Finnish political system which enabled the government to seek support from the widest possible circles in the society. Even if in war time democarcy was restricted in many ways it's essential parts functioned. Government and its ministers were under parliamentary control (at least afterwards) and could be changed if the parliament so decided. This was not the case in the other axis nations that had a more autocratic forms of government. Working parliamentary system was a very important factor in the Finnish image both in London and in Washington. And I think Moscow also had learned through mistakes that parliament really represented the opinion of the population. Hitler was not immune to claims of some things being impossible to get through the parliament either. He was well aware from his own experience how easily that support could erode. Many of his otherwise irrational indecisions especially in the economic fied can be viewed against the wish to maintain positive image among the population -even if ther were no elections in Germany of course.

Restricted war goals, passivity in the Leningrad operation, sabotashing the operation against Murmansk railroad etc. were naturally manifestations of independence from Germany but they would not have possible without the two factors mentioned above. Other axis nations tried also to keep their war separate from the German effort but failed to convince their enemies of this. Reasons were both geographic and political.

It is an other matter that the separate war theme may well have gone too far in giving an impression of totally separate war efforts. This was certainly not the case especially what comes to military operations in 1941. They were certainly co-ordinated with the German effort even if they were designed partly against German wishes. Germany also enjoyed a lot of good will in Finland from the autumn 1940 onwards as a protector against Soviet Union. This gave some appeal to the national socialist system as well even if it could not convince the majority of the population. Finnish government and president Ryti also had some deviations in their policy but they were cautious enough to keep them out of practical politics. One of these deviations were answers to a German question about future Finnish borders. Instead of answering the question directly a book from a well known scholar was published and the book was then given for the Germans to study. This offered the possibility to deny any involvment in the question later on. I don't think that the leading politicians were directly involved in drafting the book but they certainly chose a scholar whose views they by and large approved.

Finnish foreign policy before the Winter War was very idealistic and concentrated on the question of right and wrong. After the Winter War Macchiavelli gradually took over and during the Continuation War his ideas were in constant use.

An interesting what if is naturally the question what would have happened if Germany had won the war against Soviet Union? Had Finnish government also in that situation wanted to stress her independence from Germany? Would it even have been possible?

Regards,

Jari

JariL
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 409
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 08:45
Location: Finland

Postby Juha Tompuri on 01 Jun 2004 23:12

Wasa wrote:
Harri wrote:
Wasa wrote:Wartime finnish government wanted to annex parts that never belonged to Sweden in the 17th century, including Kola peninsula.


I hope you can also prove that claim (that Finnish Government made that kind of decision)?

I don't understand what the areas which belonged or didn't belonged to Sweden in the 17th Century have to do with this? Most of the world was a bit different at that time and changed also after that a lot.

Wasa wrote:Wartime finnish government wanted a Greater Finland, no doubt inspired by AHs Lebensraum-thoughts.


Again I'd like to see your proves, please. Unless you can't show these we all have right to assume that the "historical thruths" ( :roll: ) you claim are - "no doubt" - only based on quick imagination... :lol:


Of course I can, and I will present sources for this but you will have to wait until Tuesday, after the weekend.
You better hurry

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Finland
 
Posts: 9364
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Postby Mek on 02 Jun 2004 04:05

Hi all,

Very interesting topic :)

Concerning the "Lebensraum" thinking and
Greater Finland...

On Etä-lukio - Suomen Historian käännekohtia
(Turning points of Finnish history), there was a
small segment about Finlands occupation of East
Karelia. There were historians and researchers
such as Heikki Ylikangas and Antti Laine speaking
about the occupation.

They said that there could be seen signs of racial
studying of the people living in East Karelia.
There was even formed a section of the Finnish
Academy of Science (Suomalainen tiedeakatemia)
that did studies on for example: are the Äänisniemi
Russians related people to the Finns.

Also the death rate in the camps that held non-related
to Finns was much higher than in the camps that held
Finn related people. Same thing could be seen in
the death rates of POW's, but after Stalingrad
the situation improved.

Things like this kind of hint that maybe there
was by nowadays standarts question of Ethnic
Cleansing of somekind. Makes me think, that
maybe Finns had more far reaching plans for
East Karelia than just bargain chip in future
peace negotiations.

Regards,
-Pete

Mek
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 12 Aug 2003 23:07
Location: Finland

Postby Wasa on 02 Jun 2004 17:45

Juha: Unfortunately I´m at hospital this week so I haven´t access to my own computer...but I will come back to this next week..ok? :wink:

Mek: Yes, I have seen somewhere on the net that Heikki Ylikangas was appointed by the President Tarja Halonen to look into alleged war crimes comitted by finnish forces during the continuation war.
Heikki Ylikangas is of course well known in Finland and has a good reputation among scholars. Personally I think he is a very capable writer, read his book on "Klubbekriget" recently...I can recommend it to anyone interested in finnish and/or scandinavian history.. :)

User avatar
Wasa
Member
Sweden
 
Posts: 193
Joined: 30 Jun 2002 22:26
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Postby Hanski on 02 Jun 2004 20:27

Mek wrote: There were historians and researchers such as Heikki Ylikangas and Antti Laine speaking about the occupation.

They said that there could be seen signs of racial studying of the people living in East Karelia. There was even formed a section of the Finnish
Academy of Science (Suomalainen tiedeakatemia) that did studies on for example: are the Äänisniemi Russians related people to the Finns.

Also the death rate in the camps that held non-related to Finns was much higher than in the camps that held Finn related people. Same thing could be seen in the death rates of POW's, but after Stalingrad the situation improved.

Things like this kind of hint that maybe there was by nowadays standarts question of Ethnic Cleansing of somekind. Makes me think, that maybe Finns had more far reaching plans for East Karelia than just bargain chip in future peace negotiations.


It is good that this interest to ethnic origin is pointed out, but it is also worth noting that in the 1930's and 1940's it was the general trend in European science -- whether or not related to the ideology of the Nazi party. I understand the Sami people of Lapland were also subjects of anthropometric studies, their racial features such as skull dimensions were systematically measured, and they were photographed for research records. Sami skulls and bones were kept in the facilities of Helsinki University, until some years ago they were returned and re-buried in Lapland.

Studying whether some ethnic group is more or less related to another is not as such necessarily evidence of anything else but scientific interest -- in those days there were no methods to study human DNA, like genetic studies are carried out in our days. I think it is too far-fetched to conclude that those studies were preparations for ethnic cleansing, or that we could even figure out war goals by the fact that they were performed at all.

As distinguished from the above, the higher death rate of non-Finn related people and the improvement after Stalingrad speak for results of policies chosen by the Finnish occupation authorities, which really have no excuse from the humanitarian point of view, provided that the reasons of death (like old age, untreated illnesses, malnutrition) are fully taken in account and there are no confounding factors that might explain this as resulting epidemiologically from other causes. I have no detailed knowledge on this, but I also understand the whole Finnish population suffered from some degree of starvation during certain periods of the Continuation War, and at times there were genuine logistical problems in food distribution to the combat troops as well.


-----------

Generally speaking, this whole discussion on Finnish war goals in the Continuation War is more or less speculative, by necessity. Who on earth had a crystal ball in early 1941, telling the outcome of Operation Barbarossa? The decisions had to be made by weighing the most likely alternatives against each other, thinking where each scenario is likely to lead, and correcting the strategy on the way as needed by the progress of events, but no one could tell it for certain in advance.

It is utmost folly to claim that Finland "made a decision to join the war" for this or that goal.

Remember the outset:

- as a result of the Winter War, Finland had lost the territory of Karelian Isthmus to the USSR, including its defensive fortifications, resulting in far greater vulnerability to a new Soviet attack

- in accordance with the Moscow peace terms, the Red Army had a large military base in Hanko, Southern Finland, with rights to use Finnish railways across the country for transit traffic, as well as shipping lanes

- there was continuous political hostility and threats made towards Finland in the Soviet media and foreign policy, with no attempts at normalizing the relations; on the contrary, everything spoke for a renewed attempt at completing the military occupation of Finland, which had failed at first trial. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between Germany and the USSR was still in place, leaving Finland in the Soviet sphere of influence, although the Finns had no way of knowing it at the time

- the USSR subdued the Baltic countries and set up Communist puppet governments in them

- the USSR made provocations like the Kaleva incident, shooting down a Ju-52 passenger airliner on its regular flight from Tallinn to Helsinki, killing the crew and all the passengers from several countries, probably to capture a bag of diplomatic mail carried in the aircraft and seized by a Soviet submarine

- Hitler occupied Denmark and Norway, he negotiated about transit rights for the logistic support of German troops in Northern Norway, and did receive the rights from the neutral Sweden

Now, let us suppose you play the game in the role of the Finnish leaders from here on. How will you answer Hitler's request in late 1940/early 1941 about transit rights, his offers to sell you arms that are badly in short supply, or his suggestons of further co-ordinated goals? How will you prepare for Yosif Stalin's next move against you, when it is evident that the borders of Europe will soon be redrawn anyway?

With the luxury of hindsight it is all too easy to criticize from Umeå or Stockholm and voice accusations against the Finns, now that we all know how things went. But without that omniscient crystal ball in 1940-41, and without a convenient buffer country in the East between yourself and Stalin's Empire, it was primarily a matter of how to survive.

A country with a population of less than 4 million people, just recovering from a previous war with tremendous losses, is certainly not in a position to act as a driving force of world history -- the Finnish leaders of the time were realistic enough to understand this quite well. Nobody asked them whether Operation Barbarossa should take place or what the Red Army should prepare for next.

The goal of war Number 1 was to survive as an independent country -- that was indeed achieved by the Continuation War; had it been achieved otherwise, is purely speculation, as history cannot be replayed, but there are reasons to believe the Continuation War changed Stalin's thinking about the issue.

The goal Number 2 was to take back the territory lost in the Moscow peace, leaving 10% of Finland's population homeless. As we know, the achievement of this goal became only temporary, and the losses were finalized in the Paris peace treaty of 1947 with other terms as well.

The goal Number 3 was to eliminate the military bases used for offensives against Finland. The outcome turned out like in the above.

The rest of the goals must have varied by the progress of events. It made sense militarily to continue the strategic advance to the defensive positions in the Karelian Isthmus (not engaging in the attempts at taking Leningrad, contrary to Hitler's demands), to the river Svir between the lakes Ladoga and Onega, and to the Maaselkä Isthmus to the North from Lake Onega. It was also the practical limit of where the Finnish logistic system could deliver supplies. Thereafter, it was mainly a strategy of wait and see.

Of course, it is interesting to make guesses today about how everything could have turned out, had history taken another course. Naturally every High Command prepares for alternative plans according to the situation, it is their job. But Marshal Mannerheim knew Russia well enough, President Ryti and the rest of Finnish leaders were realistic enough to have no illusions about their own potential in determining the outcome of a World War. It is rubbish to claim they had fixed goals in 1941 for what the world is going to be like in 1944.

Hanski

User avatar
Hanski
Financial supporter
Finland
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: 24 Aug 2002 19:18
Location: Helsinki

Postby Harri on 02 Jun 2004 21:32

Finns also understood that Russia (or whatever it is called) will be there despite of Germans victory. And in opposite situation we would only face even stronger USSR/Russia.

----

Wasa wrote:have seen somewhere on the net that Heikki Ylikangas was appointed by the President Tarja Halonen to look into alleged war crimes comitted by finnish forces during the continuation war.


That study concerns only exporting of Soviet POWs from Finland to Germany and from Finland to USSR. The first one was not a war crime, the second one is more questionable. The only bigger problem were the Jewish POWs among the relieved ones and if they were intentionally given to Germans there may have been something criminal.

Wasa wrote:Heikki Ylikangas is of course well known in Finland and has a good reputation among scholars. Personally I think he is a very capable writer, read his book on "Klubbekriget" recently...


He for sure is a great scholar.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 3767
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Postby Juha Tompuri on 02 Jun 2004 22:40

Wasa wrote:Juha: Unfortunately I´m at hospital this week so I haven´t access to my own computer...but I will come back to this next week..ok? :wink:
Of course it´s OK.
Take care of yourself, and get well.

Regards, Juha

P.S. I´m not a great fan of Ylikangas books (specially "The Road to Tampere") and plays
http://www.kantele.com/nwfwebsite/ylika ... angas.html

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Finland
 
Posts: 9364
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Postby Hanski on 10 Jun 2004 15:23

Wasa, you promised to prove us your allegation “Wartime finnish government wanted a Greater Finland, no doubt inspired by AHs Lebensraum-thoughts”, also presenting your sources supporting this claim.

You have already been seen on other threads, so please do present us your evidence.

Hanski

User avatar
Hanski
Financial supporter
Finland
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: 24 Aug 2002 19:18
Location: Helsinki

Postby Topspeed on 17 Jun 2004 07:54

Right Hanski !

I also want to know the origins of the count of Rosens swastika story...it was also adopted to the Finnish Air Force insignia in 1918 when the first Thulin aeroplane ( Bleriot copy ) was donated to FAF by count von Rosen of Sweden. Thank you for the plane by the way.

Backbone of the FAF was made of Niuport 11 fighters that were flown to Finland by the emigrated Russian pilotofficers after the Russian revolution.
Had to thank them too here.

JT / Oulu

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 4183
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Postby Klosterlasse on 18 Jun 2004 12:00

Nuremberg, the Trial of German War Criminals.

MAJOR-GENERAL ZORYA: Mr. President, at a further stage in my statement I had intended presenting to the Tribunal a statement of General Buschenhagen, General of the former German Army. I do not, however, intend to do so now, since the Soviet prosecution has the possibility of examining this witness in Court during the session. I, On my part, request your permission to have this witness brought here for examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You wish to call him now?
MAJOR-GENERAL ZORYA: Yes, that would be convenient, in view of several technical reasons, and would facilitate the task of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
(The witness takes the stand.)
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
THE WITNESS: Erich Buschenhagen.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MAJOR-GENERAL ZORYA:

Q. Witness, will you tell the Tribunal when and where you were born?

A. I was born on 8th December, 1895, in Strasburg, in Alsace.

Q. Will you name your last military rank, please.

A. I was General in the Infantry in the German Army. My last appointment was that of General Commanding the 52nd Army Corps.

Q. Will you tell us please, did you 26th December, 1945, appeal to us in a statement in connection with the Helsinki trials?

A. Yes.
[Page 276]
Q. Do you confirm having made this statement?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Will you please tell us what you know about the preparations made by Fascist Germany for attacking the Soviet Union?

A. At the end of December, 1940, in my position as Chief of the General Staff of the German forces in Norway, I was called to the O.K.H., where the then Chief of the General Staff, Colonel-General Halder, had a conference with the Chief of Staff of the Army Groups and the independent Armies, one of which was mine. At this conference we were informed of the O.K.W.'s Directive, the "Barbarossa" Plan, which were issued on 18th December, 1940. We were given in lectures the basic reasons for the intended operations against Soviet Russia.

From this directive I learned that troops of my army also would take part in this operation. Therefore, I was especially interested in one speech made by the Chief of Staff of the Finnish Army, Lieutenant-General Heinrichs, who was then also with the O.K.H. He spoke at that time about the military actions in the winter campaign between Finland and the Soviet Union. He drew a picture of the methods of warfare and the fighting value of the Soviet Army, and also of the Finnish troops.

General Heinrichs also had conferences with Colonel-General Halder at that time, in which I did not take part myself, but I assume that they were concerned with possible co- operation between the Finnish and German troops in case of a conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union. There existed since the autumn of 1940 a military agreement for co- operation between Germany and Finland, and the German Air Force had made arrangements with the Finnish General Staff for through passage from Northern Norway to the Finnish ports, for the transport of men and material. As the result of conferences, which the German Military Attache had held in Helsinki by order of the O.K.W., this passage was extended in the winter of 1940 to a general through passage of the German Armed Forces from Northern Norway to the Finnish ports.

In order to supervise this passage, a German Army administration centre was set up in the main city of Lapland, Rovanjemi, and a German Army transport unit was transferred to the Arctic Strait of Rovanjemi and Petsamo- Rovanjemi. Furthermore, supply bases were installed along this Arctic Sea route and along the railroad which led from Rovanjemi to ports on the Finnish South coast.
In December, 1940, and January, 1941, I had, together with the O.K.W., discussions about details of the participation of troops from Norway, together with Finnish troops, in attacks against the Soviet Union.

Q. Had you occasion to negotiate with the Finnish General Staff about joint operations against the Soviet Union?

A. I did not understand the last question.

Q. Had you occasion to negotiate with the Finnish General Staff about joint operations against the Soviet Union?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Tell us, who instructed you to negotiate with the Finnish Government and what course did these negotiations follow?

A. I had orders and authorisations from the O.K.W. In February, 1941, I received -- after arrangements had been made for the participation of the troops from Norway, and Finnish troops -- I received the order to travel to Helsinki and to get in touch there, personally, with the Finnish General Staff and to discuss with them these operations from middle and Northern Finnish bases.
On 18th February, 1941, I reached Helsinki and on the two following days I had conferences with the Chief of Staff, General Heinrichs, his deputy, General Airo, and the Chief of Operations of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola. In these conferences we discussed the possibilities for operations from middle and Northern Finland, especially from the area around Kuusamo and
[Page 277]
Rovanjemi; also from the area of Petsamo, Northern Finland. These conferences led to an agreement.
After these conferences I travelled, together with the Chief of Operations of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola, to middle and Northern Finland in order to study the area of Urinsalmo-Kuusamo, the area east of Rovanjemi-Petsamo, the terrain, the possibilities for deployment and supply, and for operations from that sector. At these reconnaissance journeys, the local Finnish commanders were present. They ended on 28th February in Torneo, on the Finnish-Swedish border.

In a final conference it was agreed that an operation from the area of Kuusamo and Helsinki and an operation from the area East of Rovanjemi in the direction of Basikamo would prove successful; that, on the other hand, the operations from Petsamo towards Rovanjemi would have considerable difficulty with the terrain. That was the end of my first series of conferences with the Finnish General Staff.

As a result of these discussions there was worked out by the German High Command of Norway a detailed plan for an operation from these areas. That plan was presented to the O.K.W. and gained its approval. The High Command of Norway then gave it the code name of "Blaufuchs."

In May, that is, on 24th May, I met the Finnish Chief of Staff Heinrichs, who had been invited to the Fuehrer's headquarters at Brandenburg, and flew with him to Munich. There I had with him and his Chief of the Operational Department of the Finnish General Staff, Colonel Tapola, a discussion in preparation for another conference at Salzburg.

On 25th May there was at Salzburg a conference between the O.K.W., Field Marshal Keitel, Colonel General Jodl on the one side, and on the other, General Heinrichs and Colonel Tapola, at which the basic plans for co-operation between German and Finnish troops were made.

After this conference I travelled, together with General Heinrichs, to Berlin. There we had further conferences at the Economic and Armament Office of the O.K.W. as to the delivery of material to the Finnish Army. There were also conferences with the General Staff of the Air Force, about the air war and the supply of materials for the Finnish Air Force.
General Heinrichs, after these discussions, also had a meeting with Colonel General Halder, at which I was not present.

For the third time I met, on 2nd June, the Finnish General Staff. In my statement of 26th December I said that this conference took place at the end of April or the beginning of May; that was a mistake. As a matter of fact it took place on 2nd June.
At these conferences, which again took place between General Heinrichs, General Halder, and Colonel Tapola, the details were worked out, such as the time-table, the schedule, measures of secrecy as to the Finnish mobilisation.

There it was decided that the Finnish mobilisation should first take the form of reinforcement of the border patrols, and then the form of further enlistments for the military training of Reservists and Reserve officers; a decision was also reached about the deployment and formation of German-Finnish Forces in such a way that the main Finnish Forces, under the command of Field Marshal Mannerheim in the South, should operate together with the German Army Group "North," coming from East Prussia, in the direction of Leningrad and also towards the East of Lake Ladoga.

The other Finnish forces were to be under the command of General von Falkenhorst at the Rivers Ulo and Ulojoki. This army of Colonel General von Falkenhorst was to attack from three bases; a Southern group from the area of Kuusamo through Kerokienski against the Murmansk railway; the middle group East of Rovanjemi through Salla Kandalaksha, and finally a Northern group starting from around Petsamo against Murmansk.
[Page 278]
There was complete agreement on all these questions, and also there were details discussed about exchange of intelligence, about the use of Finnish means of transportation, and about questions of air warfare and the use of Finnish airports by the German Air Force.

After these discussions I returned to Germany, in order to work out their results and put them into action. Then again, on 12th or 13th July, I flew to Helsinki for the purpose of conferring with Lieutenant-General Erfurt, who was the German liaison officer with the Finnish Armed Forces. We met General Heinrichs at Helsinki and gave him a memorandum on the points which we had agreed upon in previous conferences. He agreed to these points, except for a minor detail. Then I turned over my duties as Liaison Officer with the Finnish General Staff to Lieutenant-General Erfurt, to take up my activities as Chief of General Staff of the German Army in Lapland.

Q. I should like to ask you a last question. If it is not too difficult for you, will you please indicate what was the exact character of these preparations of the O.K.W. and the Finnish General Staff. More especially, whether the preparation of any particular operation was discussed.

A. All agreements between the O.K.W. and the Finnish General Staff had as their sole purpose, from the very beginning, the participation of the Finnish Army and the German troops on Finnish territory in the aggressive war against the Soviet Union. There was no doubt about that.

If the Finnish General Staff, to the outside world, always pointed out that all these measures had only the character of defense measures, that was just camouflage. There was, from the very beginning, no doubt among the Finnish General Staff that all these preparations would serve only in the attack against the Soviet Union, for all the preparations that we made pointed in that same direction -- namely, the plans for mobilisation, and above all, the objectives for the attack. Nobody ever reckoned with the possibility of a Russian attack on Finland.

Since, for cogent military reasons, the operations for attack from Finnish territory could start only eight to ten days after the beginning of the attack against Russia, certain security measures were taken during and after the attack, but the whole formation and lining-up of the troops was for offensive and not defensive purposes. I believe you can see clearly from that, the aggressive character of all these preparations.

Klosterlasse
New member
Sweden
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 00:35
Location: Sweden

Postby Topspeed on 18 Jun 2004 15:56

Very interesting stuff.

What happened to Erich Bushenhagen and why did the Soviets let General Heinrichs lead the Finnish Army after the war..according to this he was a war criminal and planned an invasion to Sovietunion with the other 2 gentlemen mentioned ?

Note there is no mention about Finnish Government being in the plan even when asked directly.

As far as I know Finland did not fire at Soviets before they attacked us.
I am also aware that some other countries have made plans to attack another country still they have not done so. In this case since Soviets attacked Finland. Finland was forced to take action as planned. Wonder what had happened if Germans attacked Soviets and we had not been prepared for Soviets to attack us ?

Finland was not getting any aid elsewere so I guess in search for military equipment they had no other alternative than Germany. Germany on the other hand knew we would like to get back the land Soviets had stolen from us. This was very risky business I know.

Correct ?


I am still waiting for the answer from Wasa. What about you Hanski did you get your answer ?

JT / Oulu
Last edited by Topspeed on 18 Jun 2004 21:28, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 4183
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Postby Topspeed on 18 Jun 2004 19:45

Okay,

Erich Buschenlagen was 11 years as a prisoner in Russia and died 1994 In Taurus area. He was a very capable General. A.O.K. XXI chef, who runned the troops in Norway in the BARBAROSSA start. He knew certainly the German side of the story the best.

I as a person who usually trusts older peoples word can only say: " See and learn ! "

So we finns really wanted to kick the Soviets ass hard. No wonder we had to pay such a high price of our gamble in the Karelia area.

My last comment :" I wish there had been an other way ! "

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 4183
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Postby Harri on 20 Jun 2004 17:56

Topspeed wrote:...why did the Soviets let General Heinrichs lead the Finnish Army after the war..according to this he was a war criminal and planned an invasion to Sovietunion with the other 2 gentlemen mentioned?
Note there is no mention about Finnish Government being in the plan even when asked directly.


It is really interesting that only a few of our key political leaders were later accused of planning attack war against Soviet Union but none of our top military leaders were accused. We don't know all what happened behind the scenes among the Allies during and after the war and what they have agreed. Perhaps also Stalin/Soviets saw that Finnish behaviour during the war and our relatively early resignation from the war proved that Finland was not so evil? We don't know how much Britain and USA did for us. I don't belive that Stalin alone would have been so kind for us... :lol:

Gen. Buschenhagen's is not a very reliable wittness. Right after the lost war he was very bitter towards Finns and Finland because of Lapland War. Additionally he didn't partisipate in all meetings with Finns and Germans and didn't know all details of these meetings (he only "believed"). He although should have known Germans plans for Northern Finland (Lapland) because in 1941 he was the Chief of Staff of AOK Norwegen.

Like I have many times said Germans had their own plans for Finland. Finns hadn't partisipated in making these plans. That is why many later German statements reflect more their own plans and not the Finnish views or plans. Additionally Gen. Heinrichs despite of his position didn't have any chance to make any desicions for the Finnish Supreme HQ because Marshal Mannerheim alone made all desicions. So, Heinrichs was only a messenger between Germans and Mannerheim.

We know now that Germans didn't show nearly all their plans to Finns. Co-operation was more co-ordinating operational limits and operations. At that time Germans didn't take Finnish Army too seriously and for sure didn't listen our generals' advices. Germans learned to respect Finns later during the summer and especially in winter 1941.

Topspeed wrote:As far as I know Finland did not fire at Soviets before they attacked us.


Finns didn't shoot but German aircraft used our area to attack military targets around Leningrad (planes were also refuelled at Utti airbase). Also Finnish and German vessels laid mines on Estonian coast. To me the later one was a defensive act because Estonia was illegally occupied by USSR and Finland didn't admit that illegal occupation. Estonia was also a base for attacks against Finland like we had seen already during the Winter War.

On the other hand Soviets had been active in breaking their agreements with Finland all the time since 1939.

Topspeed wrote:I am also aware that some other countries have made plans to attack another country still they have not done so. In this case since Soviets attacked Finland. Finland was forced to take action as planned. Wonder what had happened if Germans attacked Soviets and we had not been prepared for Soviets to attack us ?


All armies make and have plans either for attacking or defendind. Making these plans is the business of all armies during peace-time.

One thing is for sure: Germany had promised to assist Finland if we were attacked by the Soviets. On 25.6.1941 that promise was redeemed and so Finland became co-belligerant of Germany.

Topspeed wrote:Finland was not getting any aid elsewere so I guess in search for military equipment they had no other alternative than Germany. Germany on the other hand knew we would like to get back the land Soviets had stolen from us. This was very risky business I know.
Correct ?


In 1940 or 1941 it really looked like the only sensible solution. Now it is of course easy to criticize Finnish military and political leaders. I think we'd do the same if we were in the same situation again because other choices were even more uncertain.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Finland
 
Posts: 3767
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

PreviousNext

Return to Winter War & Continuation War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests