Hitler and separate war

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
krimsonglass51
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 00:03
Location: united states

Hitler and separate war

#1

Post by krimsonglass51 » 21 Oct 2014, 00:27

I recently discovered the published work "Hitler and His Generals," a compilation of conferences between him and his generals from 1942-1945. There was a particular dialogue from Hitler in reference to Finland that made me curious:
"'Your theory, which you always preach-- that it was a war of the Great Powers, which doesn't concern Finland and in which Finland is not interested, and that Finland can just go its own way to get out of this war of the Great Powers-- would give our people exactly the same right. Germany could end its war of the Great Powers as soon as some understanding could be reached, without taking the small powers into consideration.' To this he replied, very subdued, that would mean the destruction of Finland. But in the last few days they've been making fine declarations. They probably suspect by now that others won't lift a finger for them anyway."
My questions are:
What did Hitler (or the OKW high command for that matter) really think of the Finnish belief in their waging a separate war from the Germans?

What did the last line: "But in the last few days they've been making fine declarations. They probably suspect by now that others won't lift a finger for them anyway" really mean?

User avatar
JTV
Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:03
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Hitler and separate war

#2

Post by JTV » 21 Oct 2014, 05:57

It would be quite useful to actually mention who he was discussing with at that time and when this discussion happened.

Jarkko


krimsonglass51
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 00:03
Location: united states

Re: Hitler and separate war

#3

Post by krimsonglass51 » 21 Oct 2014, 14:37

This is the source: http://books.google.com/books?id=PkqVru ... 22&f=false

While I cannot see the footnotes because the pages are not available, it seems as if Hitler was reading a message sent from the Finns and discussing its contents to his generals. This dialogue took place in late 1943.

krimsonglass51
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 00:03
Location: united states

Re: Hitler and separate war

#4

Post by krimsonglass51 » 22 Oct 2014, 20:30

I feel that even though the Germans allowed the Finns to express their view of separate war as long as they held up the Soviets on their front, Hitler (and probably others) grew annoyed by the rhetoric.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Hitler and separate war

#5

Post by durb » 22 Oct 2014, 21:28

The whole issue of "separate war" of Finland is academic. Nowadays it has been questioned openly also in Finland as there is just too much evidence that Finnish attack plans of 1941 were practically part of operation Barbarossa and Finnish/German military coordination. In Northern Finland were strong German troops operating and Finnish airfields were at Luftwaffe´s use before 22.6.1941 - there were also minelaying operations carried out by Finnish Navy before 22.6.1941. Soviets got provoked and started air raids on 25.6. after which Finnish government could say that Finland was under attack and obliged to go to "new defensive war".

The "separate war" was a myth created for political purposes. Firstly it was useful "market tool" of war toward the Finnish public and made it possible to get all Finnish parties behind the war policy. Secondly "separate war" was a concept which made it possible for Finns to maintain diplomatic relations with Western powers and have more diplomatic freedom. When the war started to go badly for Germany, the "separate war" was useful concept as it opened the possibility of separate peace. This of course was something that worried Germans and for good reason. It is ironic that during the critical summer of 1944 German military aid helped Finland to stop Soviet attack and get a acceptable separate peace with Soviets. After that goodbye to Germany.

"Finnish separate war" is a myth and nothing more than a useful propaganda tool of its own time. Finland was allied with Germany in common war against Soviet Union. However Finns maintained independence, democratic system and the small Finnish-Jewish community was never persecuted. IIRC, Finland also maintained workable diplomatic relations with USA during the whole Continuation War - IIRC, there was just a small break in 1944, but never a state of war between two countries (as there was between UK and Finland).

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

Re: Hitler and separate war

#6

Post by JariL » 23 Oct 2014, 12:48

"Finnish separate war" is a myth and nothing more than a useful propaganda tool of its own time. Finland was allied with Germany in common war against Soviet Union.
It is not a myth because it was introduced as a policy right from the beginning and it was more than a propaganda tool because it allowed Finland to have at least some room for diplomatic manuever between the rock and the hard place. It was also accepted to some degree by all big powers because it suited their purposes without costing anything.

The heated discussion is caused by the interpretation of the term "alliance", which some translate to "Finland was fighting for the same goals as Germany" and some others as "Finland was fighting for her own goals and just happened to be on the same side with Germany". This would not be much of a discussion without the holocaust. If the first interpretation is accepted, it automatically means that Finland was an active partner in mass murder. Those who oppose this kind of thinking have used "Separate war" as a tool to prove that Finland right from the beginning disassociated herself from Germany's war goals, including genocide of Jews. This is stretching "Separate war" far beyond what it was intended for when the term was introduced.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Hitler and separate war

#7

Post by durb » 23 Oct 2014, 16:53

Finland did not take action to eliminate its own Jews nor handed most of the Jew refugees to German SS. However among the Soviet prisoners of war Jews, Communits Party members were selected and many of them were handed over to Germans. This is well documented and Finland was not free of antisemitism - you just need to watch some Finnish movies of Interwar period where suspicious "jutkus" appear. However the antisemitism was limited to circles of some conservatives and far-right. The Finnish Jewish community was active trying to save foreign Jews residing in Finland from the handover to Germans. Without their effort many immigrants of Jewish origin would have been handed over to Germans.

The one question is Leningrad. It was well known that Hitler´s goal was to blow up the whole city and hand the ruins to Finns. This was accepted as a legitimate goal by Finnish military command and governement - Finland would once and for all get a rid of the shadow of St. Petersburg. There were even plans to evacuate the zoo of Leningrad in cooperation with Germans. Finns however did not want to do the dirty job, which was left to Germans. There was no wish to lose Finnish men in bitter street-fighting, take care of Leningrad´s population and participate in the process of blowing up the whole city. These were the main motives of stopping Finnish troops in Karelian Isthmus. As a consequence Finnish stop at Karelian Isthmus saved St. Petersburg from demolition, but it was not the goal of Finnish military command or Finnish governement.
Last edited by durb on 23 Oct 2014, 17:43, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Karelia
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 28 May 2012, 15:55
Location: Pohojanmaa, Finland

Re: Hitler and separate war

#8

Post by Karelia » 23 Oct 2014, 17:42

The issue of "separate war" is not a myth but a fact. The Finnish separate war was also acknowledged by the Allies, who never saw nor treated Finland as Germany's ally. As pointed out, Finland was never in a state of war with most of the Allies, the USA and the Free France included. The UK and her Dominions only declared war on Finland to please Stalin, not because they wanted it.

The fact that Finland gave information of her military possibilities to Germany and made supporting plans was only sensible and logical in 1940-41. It's the duty of the Defence Forces to make preliminary plans for different situations, especially for the likely ones - hopefully with a powerful friend. All the plans with Germany had the reservation "IF the USSR attacks Finland". Naturally that was to expected, since the soviet imperialistic ambitions towards Finland were no secret, especially remembering the vulneralble defence positions of Finland with 30.000 soviet troops in Southern Finland in 1941.

The "strong" German forces (1,5 divisions on 21st June 1941, plus two 2/3 divisions on the next day) in Northern Finland were only a fraction stronger than the soviet ones in the South (on 21st June). Luftwaffe operating from the Finnish airports could not and did not launch any attacks against the USSR. They did stretch this rule a bit by refuelling in Finland on their way back to East Prussia. The first LW attack from Finland happened only on 25th June.

The first Finnish mine layings happened only in the morning of 22nd June - AFTER the first soviet attacks. There is still some false information about this around - told also by supposedly(!) well respected historians. The soviets did not notice these mine laying operations at all and thus could not be provoked. Molotov himself indirectly confessed, that the soviets had started (also the new) war against Finland "because the Germans were in Finland".

Finland was not a German "ally" since there was no "alliance", no treaty nor any other form of official paper. Naturally there was an understanding for several issues, which one could interprete as an alliance if one so chooses.

In the Finnish POW camps the soviet POWs were separated by several reasons. There were camps for officers, Russians, Finno-Ugric peoples, other minority peoples, communists/trouble makers and so on.

Finland traded POWs with Germany. Finland got Finnic POW's and handed over in exchange POWs Germany was interested in: the ones they could draft into the Army and the ones they could get some intelligence information from. Nobody was handed over because of being a Jew. The Jewish POW's were a very small percentage of the ones handed over.

Finland was not really interested in Leningrad. On the other hand it's good to remember, that St. Petersburg was built on the ethnically Finnish land in the midst of the ethnically Finnish population.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Hitler and separate war

#9

Post by durb » 23 Oct 2014, 18:15

"On the other hand it's good to remember, that St. Petersburg was built on the ethnically Finnish land in the midst of the ethnically Finnish population."

This true in early 18th Century, but by late 19th Century the reality was already different. And removing St. Petersburg from "old Finnish soil" is enough justification to see it being blown up with all of its cultural monuments and accepting that the population of St. Petersburg would be sent to some unknown destiny (= concentration camps + starvation)? Finns were prepared to take the ruins and old Finnish soil once Germans had done the job, but left the dirty job entirely to Germans.

But going back to separate war concept - it was something that was less accentuated when Germany was winning war and more accentuated when Germany was losing war. Finland fought alonside the Axis and had good reasons to do so in 1941-1944. This has very little to do with Holocaust and war crimes. But as Holocaust unfortunately occurred, there was naturally even stronger need to distance Finland from Germany in postwar history writing. Finland wanted to be one of the "good ones" - and after WW2 the allies of Germany were not the good ones, then historical truth was that Finland was not an ally, but a kind of co-belligerant state at the side of Germany and thus not one of the "bad ones".

IMHO Finland during 1941-1944 should be studied as an ally of Germany but one that tried to keep more than one gates open, which was politically wise solution. Separate war concept served this policy well and it did help Finland to survive from war.

But looking it from the viewpoint of good old Adolf he must have thought that this "separate war" of Finland that it was measure for "a rat prepared to leave the ship if it starts to sink." In 1944 Finland was fortunate again in a sense that it did not need to declare war to Germany and begin hostilities because Germans (as Soviets in 1941) got provoked and in Sept. 1944 tried unsuccesfully take Suursaari. After that it was easy to note that Finland had been attacked by Germans and thus our country was again obliged to go to war in order to defend itself. All of Finland´s war are defence wars - even when Finns attacked.

User avatar
Karelia
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 28 May 2012, 15:55
Location: Pohojanmaa, Finland

Re: Hitler and separate war

#10

Post by Karelia » 23 Oct 2014, 18:59

Although the Russian population increased steadily the countryside around st. Petersburg still had a lot of Finnish population in the late 19th century. Only Stalin destroyed most of the Ingrian Finns.

Nobody is trying to justificate destroying Leningrad only because the land was robbed from the Finns. On the other hand the soviets were using Leningrad for justificating their imperialistic aggressions against Finland, so Finland (and the Baltics) would have been better of without such a constant threat. In summer 1941 the concentration camps and starvations were unknown in Finland.

Finland was not interested in Leningrad nor willing to fight for it, but if Germany was then why should have Finland oppposed it?

Of course the separate war issue was more accentuated later. It does not change the fact there was a separate war already before that.

Finland was one of the good ones anyway, but of course it was better to let everybody else to remember it too.

Naturally there can be various personal opinions but the FACT remains, that Finland was NOT a German ally. Of course Adolf surely had his own opinions too, but are we supposed to take his supposed thoughts as a reality? Surely not.

All three wars of Finland in 1939-45 were in practice the same war - which the USSR started in 1939 by attacking Finland. Everything else was only a direct consequence of that.

I don't want to personally offend you durb, but unfortunately your views seem to follow one of the recent neo-Finlandization trends in Finland, where (once again) Finnish politicians should have known everything we know now in 2014, and which happened say late 1941 onwards, already in 1939. That's called hindsight...

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Hitler and separate war

#11

Post by durb » 23 Oct 2014, 21:27

"Finland was NOT a German ally". Most strange claim that I have ever read about Continuation War. Germany was a vital ally for Finland for following reasons:

1) it was the only great power in the sphere of Baltic Sea to support Finland and prevent Finland being annexed to USSR. Great Britain and USA were far away and had little importance - if Soviet would have annexed Finland in summer/autumn 1940, GB and USA would have made some diplomatic protests and that would have been all they could do.

2) only country to provide Finnish Defence Forces with important quantity of different material like artillery pieces, planes etc.

3) only country to provide Finland with grain supplies and prevent famine in Finland.

For these reasons Finland had to be allied with Germany. There simply was not other choice. Separate war concept was useful tool for diplomacy and for domestic public opinion. However it was something "de jure" at most. De facto Finland was an ally of Germany because no other sensible option was open in 1941. So "de jure" we can speak of separate war which is useful for diplomacy, but de facto there was a military alliance. There exists enough documentation that Finnish military command and Finnish governement were well aware of Barbarossa long before 22.6.1941. There were already attacking plans to go over the border and define the strategic limits of advance. For political reasons ("separate war" concept) Finnish attack to Karelia and later to Karelian Isthmus were delayed. Miltarily this was a mistake and cost lots of Finnish blood in summer and autumn 1941 when all the momentum of any surprise attack had been lost.

This is all well explained by Helge Seppälä (Suomi hyökkääjänä - Finland as an Attacker) and Mauno Jokipii. Not all like Seppälä because he writes about things that are not in full accordance with established myths. He is a patriotic man as well as I am. I hope that there will be liberty of history research and interpretation in Finland without fear of being called "finlandizator" or Bäckmanist if one writes or says something that I have outlined. History of Finland in 1939-1944 should not be seen as errorfree hero tale of Finnish politicians & military command - it was a series of decisions - some well-founded, some obligatorily oneway tickets and some that were wrong. Happily there were more right than wrong decisions, otherwise we would now debate about the history of Soviet Republic of Finland (which happily goes to "what if" -section).

The real difference between Finland and other German "minor" allies was that Finland was not a satellite of Germany. Thus Finland was in alliance with Germany only as long as it served Finnish own best interests. The separate war concept served this well and it was right to use such concept for both diplomatic and propagandistic purposes.

User avatar
Karelia
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 28 May 2012, 15:55
Location: Pohojanmaa, Finland

Re: Hitler and separate war

#12

Post by Karelia » 24 Oct 2014, 00:42

All those things you mentioned did not make Finland as a German "ally" de jure, since there was no official alliance - like there was e.g. between Germany and the USSR 23rd August 1939 - 22nd June 1941. Of course Finland and Germany did a lot of co-operation and Finland was in many ways dependent on Germany, so I can understand why some see that as a de facto alliance. However co-bellingerents is the correct expression.

That documentation shows that although Finnish military command was aware of the German supposed plans in the spring 1941, they only got to know it for sure abt a month earlier and the exact time only one day earlier. Finland could not trust Germany 100 %, since she had sold Finland only 1,5 years earlier to the soviets and could do that again, since the Germans lied to the Finns that they were still "negotiationg" with the soviets until the Barbarossa. So - although Finland was aware of the German plans and was naturally preparing accordingly, they still could not be absolutely sure what was going to happen.

There were all kinds of plans. The fact is that the Finnish forces were in defence formations at the beginning of Barbarossa. It's true that the surprise effect was lost. On the other hand the soviet forces would have been considerably stronger if Finland had attacked together with Germany.

I don't respect much Seppälä. I see him (his outdated works) as shameful expressions of back bending during Kekkonen's reign. Thankfully there has already been few decades of liberty of history research after too many decades of tongue biting. Unfortunately it seems that there are still/again some elements who want to return to the "dark ages", when black was supposed to be explained as white, the soviet imperialistic aggressor was supposed to be shown as a "reasonable defender" and patriotic, democratic Finnish statesmen as stupid war mongers!

Personally I do NOT see the Finnish wars as "error free hero tales". However it does not mean that we should in contrast try to artificially find/create errors/crimes/scandals where there is none/only insignificant ones.

The separate war concept is the right one to use because it is also the correct one. One either is pregnent or not, as well as one either is an ally or not. Of course one can change the meaning of a word, but that's not what I support here.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Hitler and separate war

#13

Post by durb » 24 Oct 2014, 03:45

Well, let´s agree that separate war is a concept of which full 100 % agreement cannot be reached. In my opinion it is wrong to say that Finland was NOT an ally of Germany and that we were NOT "brothers in arms" (Waffenbrüder) - we were and I´am not ashamed of it because the other timeline choice would likely have been the annexation of Finland to USSR.

The end of Finnish-German alliance led to some consequences which neither Finns or Germans wished. The Lapland war was "unnecessary tragedy" - Germans would have withdrawn anyway from Finnish territory and it would not have affected in any way the outcome of WW2 if Germans would have been allowed to leave Lapland peacefully - it could well have been a nice paper war Germans evacuating and following a reasonable timetable agreed unofficially between Germans and Finns. Unfortunately Lapland war was necessary war and Germans had to be harassed, because it was the prize that Finland just had to pay for the separate peace with USSR. Or should we say that Lapland war was the prize of "separate war" which made possible "separate peace"? What about Lapland war? - was it our "separate war" against Germans or was it a obscure sideshow connected to the war which Allied had against Germany?

As I have claimed Finland was not formally de jure in alliance with Germany, although the Anticomintern pact that was signed by Finland in November 1941. De facto (practically) Finland was sided with Germany in common war against Soviet Union. Separate war -concept was for diplomacy and propaganda (latter in a positive sense as it served Finnish national interests). For the Western powers (USA, UK) the Finnish separate war concept was also very OK - because it held inside the seeds of crackdown of Finnish-German alliance, which in turn served the overall goals of Allied warfare. Less allies for Germany, better for Allies - so of course they accepted such concept with the hope to see Finland exit from German alliance as soon as possible.

How Germans and Hitler saw the Finnish separate war concept is interesting - did they really accept it as a de jure arrangement for German-Finnish alliance? How much did it worry Germans that the "separate war" could mean also "separate peace"? At the first stage Germans may have accepted the separate war concept if it was a necessary arrangement to get Finnish support for Barbarossa - the war was anyway common against USSR but letting Finns have their formality of "separate war" just to appease Finnish lawyers. It did not mean much to give Finns this little formulation in alliance deal because it was expected that USSR will fall in 1941. But as this did not happen, the "separate war" concept became problematic for Germans as it could mean also Finnish "separate peace" and thus breaking the Finnish-German alliance. Thus delays/cuts on German food/fuel/arms deliveries to Finland happened every time when Germans had reason to believe Finns planning exit from German-Finnish alliance. Finns were obliged to assure privately and publicly that Finland would stand by the Germany in the common war against Bolshevism and would not make separate peace - and doing so admitted that Finnish/Soviet war was a part of combined war effort of German and its allies vs. Soviet Union.

It would be interesting to know how realistic Germans were about Finland by the spring 1944. They must have understand that Finns with their "separate war" were looking for acceptable separate peace with USSR as soon as possible. Thus sending fuel, food and military aid to Finland was to waste valuable resources on unreliable ally. Still when Finns needed and asked desperately those scarce resources, Germans did send them in June/July 1944. With German help the crisis of summer 1944 was over and Finland got such position that it could negotiate hard but still acceptable separate peace with USSR. It is absurd to claim that Soviet-Finnish war 1941-1944 was basically just Finnish separate business with Soviets without de facto connection to Germans. If it would really have been so, then we could have have fought the whole war without German arms, without German grain, without German fuel, without any coordination with Germans?

krimsonglass51
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 00:03
Location: united states

Re: Hitler and separate war

#14

Post by krimsonglass51 » 24 Oct 2014, 05:36

What about Lapland war? - was it our "separate war" against Germans or was it a obscure sideshow connected to the war which Allied had against Germany?
It was an often forgotten chapter of WWII triggered by the Soviet desire to have the Finns cut off all ties to the Germans and remove them from Finnish territory. So the latter choice is correct. I don't think there are too many people who would claim that the Lapland War or Continuation War were not part of WWII.
How Germans and Hitler saw the Finnish separate war concept is interesting - did they really accept it as a de jure arrangement for German-Finnish alliance? How much did it worry Germans that the "separate war" could mean also "separate peace"?
Although the quote I posted in the beginning of this thread was the only one of its kind I could find, I would not be surprised if the Germans grew increasingly frustrated at the Finnish idea of a separate war as the war dragged on.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Hitler and separate war

#15

Post by durb » 27 Oct 2014, 16:06

The following are notes based on the 2004 dissertation work of Markku Jokisipilä - Aseveljiä vai liittolaisia? Suomi, Hitlerin Saksan liittosopimusvaatimukset ja Rytin-Ribbentropin sopimus (Brothers in arms or allies? Finland, demands of alliance pact by Hitler´s Germany and Ryti-Ribbentrop pact).

First thing to point out is that which I have outlined in my previous posts. Although there was no formal alliance pact, Finland de facto was an ally of Germany. For Finns the Germany in 1941-1943 was not a Holocaust Germany with ruthless occupation policy in Europe but a vital and benevolent ally providing food, fuel and weaponry. The criticism toward Germany began to grow in 1943 when it was seen that Germany will not win the war - it was at that point when the need to emphasize "Finnish separate war" emerged. It may be appear opportunistic, but it was just realism.

From the German point of view and history writing the Finnish alliance/brother in arms -relation with Germany is of very minor importance and it seems that this was the case in Hitler´s foreign policy too. Hitler was not interested in Finland as long as it fullfilled its responsabilities as a millitary ally or "front-filler" tying up considerable number of Soviet troops - thus he was not interested if there was a formal alliance pact as long as the de facto there was a military alliance/co-operation.

Finland did benefit of its remote location, which enabled Finnish foreign policy to have more space of diplomatic manouvering. Had Finland been located in Central Europe, its fate would have been completely different - no matter how bravely Finns would had fought. Finnish-Soviet war from the late 1941 until to summer 1944 was quite silent sideshow of WW2, where nothing really important happened. Finnish front was of secondary importance for both Germans and Soviets.

Finnish military command got its first info on Barbarossa on Jan/Feb. of 1941. Here Hitler´s thoughts based on notes of his adjuntant major Gerhard Engel: "Partnership would be difficult because Finland would like to be free from formal pacts, and in no way it would like to break its relations with America and according to possibilities Finland would like to remain in relations with Britain. For Hitler it is equal. They (Finns) are brave people and there Hitler would have at least a secure flank and not to mention it that it is good to have brothers in arms which are revengeful, which has been noted. Politically one must be careful. Finnish people are sensitive and one can not be authoritarian with them as one must be with the Slovaks."

Hitler did admire the military achievements of Finns during Winter War and in early phase of Continuation War. In January 1942 Hitler told to Finnish general Heinrichs that "Finland had fought brilliantly and is even without formal pact a true ally. One who fights for common cause like Finland would never be left alone."

In April 1942 Hitler noted in private table conversation that "It would be much wiser to keep this kind of hero people (Finns) as an ally than to annex them to German Reich because that would lead only to complications."

When visiting in Finland in 4.6.1942 (Mannerheim´s birhtday): "Finns are the only truly reliable friends of Germany".

Germany made its best efforts in 1941-1942 to keep German-Finnish relationships as good as possible. Thus Germany had an image of not only vital but also rather benevolent ally (for example the German troops in Lapland had exemplar discipline and treated with respect the local civil population - although Lapland was burned, many local memories of Germans were very positive). German grain supplies in springwinter 1942 did save Finnish population from starvation. It was not until 1943 when Germans started to lose their good fame and open voices started to criticize German occupation policy in Norway and Estonia.

Although there were things in Finland which made Germans unhappy - too little antisemitism, too little echo for national socialist ideas and the parliamentary system including such as socialdemocrats - Hitler did tolerate these Finnish specialities and was sure during most of the time of war that Finns did not have any real chances to separate from common war against Bolshevism. Ribbentrop wanted a formal alliance pact (which he at last did get from president Ryti on June 1944), but Hitler did not support such idea and considered unformal de facto alliance to be enough. The fighting in common Anti-Soviet war had created "moral alliance bond", which was considered enough. Finns were considered "morally responsable" allies and Finnish commitment to Anticomintern Pact was enough.

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”