Finland and overall European picture according to the Allies

[krimsonglass51]

You can see from many biographies exmp. Mannerheims and from books considering finnish intelligence that Churchill and Mannerheim both shared the same oppinions considering communism. Churchill was sympathizing Finland during both wars. But the thing is that constant pressure from USSR and Stalin made Brittain declare war on Finland. He even said that declaring war on Finland was a mistake and the only military operation against finns was the bombing of the far northern port of Petsamo mainly occupied by german soldiers and ships. Mannerheim and Churchill sent a few secret letters to eachother considering the attitudes of allied nations toward Finland.

The exchange between Churchill and Stalin I posted was meant to show that even though Churchill knew that the Soviet leader would not likely ease on Finland, he still tried to talk him into making peace with Finland by emphasizing the potential effect it would have on Germany and the Axis if the Finns were to drop out of the war.
As I said before, while all of the Allies knew that the war in Finland was part of WWII, the Western Allies knew that they were a different case from Germany and her satellites and made efforts to take her out of the war.

[krimsonglass51]

A quote and a link from a thread long ago, "Finland's involvement in WW2/An Annoyance"

Finnish dogma of the"separate war" is a purely artificial concept proved not by argument but by blind repetition to reconcile Finland's desire not to be in the World War with the fact that it is. The Finns have wished to enjoy all the advantages of co-belligerency with Germany and none of the liabilities. Finland will be held responsible for sharing in Hitler's plans for attack on Russia but in its state of quasi-occupation is not free by itself to get out of its "separate war" even if it wanted to.

US Minister in Finland Schoenfeld shortly before leaving Finland in late December of 1942
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... q2=finland

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/USSR/GPW/index.html
A collection of Stalin's speeches, many of which include the fighting in Finland ('41-'44) as part of their "Great Patriotic War."

In light of previous posts, the western Allies had changing views on the nature of Finland's "separate war." However, by the Tehran Conference in late 1943, they (including Stalin) came to a conclusion that Finland would be spared from unconditional surrender given the separate nature of their war from Germany. That is /not/ to say that their war was not part of WWII because they were not an Axis country. Iceland, which was invaded by the British, was neutral throughout the war, Iran and Iraq were neutral at the time of their invasions, and Thailand was never officially an Axis country. These countries are still considered participants of WWII despite not being not being Axis nations.
It is important to note, that the Allies always considered the fighting in Finland as part of WWII in Europe as evident from the various documents I have linked throughout this thread.

[Karelia]

There seems to be some confusion here. AFAIK nobody in Finland claims/claimed that the Finnish Wars - especially the Continuation War - were not part of the WW2.

The separate war means that the Finnish war against the soviets was separate from the German one. Different reasons, different objectives, different leaderships, different political systems and ideologies etc. Naturally the co-belligerents did a lot of co-operation, but the wars were still separate.

[valtonen]

For years the most popular doctrine concerning finnish involment in WW2 was the "ajopuuteoria" - drift wood theory, according to which Finland just drifted from situation to another or side to another. Scholars do not propagate this theory - Finland did have choises and room to maneuver. The relations with Germany were far more intense than it would have been necessary for war efforts. On the other hand it should be remembered, that the whole civilisation including religion (except for the miniscule orthodox part) has been imported from Germany to Finland (through Sweden).
Even though all things german were very populat in Finland, the nationalk socialist ideas never aroused interest in Finland.

[Karelia]

True, but the choices available for Finland and the room to manouver between the wars were very limited. It is very hard to see any real option to the decisions made by the Finnish politicians then - with the knowledge available at the time.

As I see it the preferred options were not available at all - only the bad and questionable ones.

[Seppo Jyrkinen]

Finland did have choises and room to maneuver.

A choice between Hitler and Stalin. Two devils! And Stalin continued Winter War with political weapons. Same time British government was encouraging Stalin to have aggressive policy towards Finland because of nickel.

Even though all things german were very populat in Finland, the nationalk socialist ideas never aroused interest in Finland.

Parliament elections 1939, Nazi's got around 0,2...0,3% of all votes.

[jorman]

I would ask writer krimsonglass51, can you explain us, which were the Finnish
options after the Winter War, under the continuous threat and the very immediate feeling of being alone and abandoned?

One open harbour in Petsamo/Petchenga and the British unwillingness of
granting navycertys for the Finnish Merchant ships.

[krimsonglass51]

I would ask writer krimsonglass51, can you explain us, which were the Finnish
options after the Winter War, under the continuous threat and the very immediate feeling of being alone and abandoned?

One open harbour in Petsamo/Petchenga and the British unwillingness of
granting navycertys for the Finnish Merchant ships.

Well I would say that Finland had few viable options between 1940 up until Barbarossa. As you just alluded to, they were stuck between two totalitarian states and had little to no support from the western democracies. This I am aware of. I am also aware that Finland did not fight a war of annihilation like Germany.
I made this thread to show that even though they accepted the notion of separate war (from the Axis), the Allies still considered the fighting in Finland/Karelia/Lapland from the summer of 1941, up until the last German troops left northern Finland and Norway in 1945, to be part of WWII.

[jorman]

krimsonglass51, thank you for your reply.

Dear Sir,

The question was, how to survive and support the country with grain, fuel and raw materials, when foreign trade was not possible.

It is my opinion, that the Anglo-Saxon historians do not have very clear picture of
what happened in Finland in 1939-45, so it was also with the politicians.
I have seen several British books, for example, where maps and notes follow more fantasy than the facts.
In YouTube you can find a British trailer of a film (from 1940??) where
the Swedish iron mines of Kiruna are placed on the ice of Inari lake in Finnish Lappland. Those iron mines were the reason for the planned French-British
expedition in April 1940.

The famous historian Beevor, expressed his opinion, that the Finnish Army had quite a unsignificant role in the war against Russia. Why so, if the Soviet Army needed 800 000 - 1 000 000 men against Finland?
So, politicians of those days did not know the situation in Finland very well.

[krimsonglass51]

The question was, how to survive and support the country with grain, fuel and raw materials, when foreign trade was not possible.

I'm afraid that's a question that can be directed to other more knowledgeable members of this forum. Believe me, they know more than I do.
If I had to give an answer, I'd say fighting prowess saved the country in spite of limited availability of supplies.

[jorman]

Writer krimsonglass51,

Dear Sir,
I send hereby my greetings to you concerning your most valuable reply.

It was historian Anthony Upton, who came into my mind.
It is said, that he shot down the theory of "the floating stock".
Well, it was very easy to him being a foreigner in a safe country.

That is why I am asking, is it necessary for a nation, to commit suicide in order to be neutral in the great war?

We have here in Finland, a group of young historians, who follow Mr. Upton.
It is easy for them, having enjoyed all the benefits of the democratic rule in a Nordic well fare state,
including free education from their infant age to the post graduate level. The alternative, the tail side of the coin, which was seen in the Baltic states and in Poland, does not come into their minds.

Thank you for being interested of the history of this small coutry.