From that I just infer that the marxist lenninist rethorics used in that internal soviet document (Draft) from June 1944 was harsher than what was proposed in March. It does not say anything explicit about the net result for Finland, and it does in no way support the claim that the soviets stepped back from the March proposal, quite contrary.peeved wrote:There was quite a difference between the overt Soviet ambitions in June and September 1944 as best described by this excerpt from the opening of the Soviet peacy treaty draft in June (from http://seura.fi/historia/sotahistoria/e ... autuminen/ ) ”Suomen hallitus ja puolustusvoimain ylipäällystö tunnustavat Suomen asevoimien täydellisen häviön sodassa SNTL:ää vastaan ja ilmoittavat Suomen ehdottomasta antautumisesta pyytäen lopettamaan sotatoimet. SNTL:n Hallitus suostuu laatimaan ehdot, joilla se on valmis pysäyttämään sotatoimet Suomea vastaan…”. "The Finnish government and Defense Forces' High Command admit to the total defeat of Finnish armed forces in the war against the USSR and announce the unconditional surrender of Finland asking for cessation of military operations. The USSR government agrees to draw up the terms under which it is ready to stop military operations against Finland..."John T wrote:3. The Soviet demands when the "final" peace negotiations started.(Does June differs from September?)
Markus
I don't see the paragraf you translates to answer What was the proposal to Finland from Soviet union in June 1944?.
My google translate gives this from a later part of the article:
I see nothing what those six main sections actually meant, the article only focus on the writing of "unconditional surrender",The text is divided into six main sections, the first of which is "The war Conditions". The first step does not leave any room for doubt: "Thus, the Finnish land, sea and air forces, wherever located, surrender unconditionally."
Indeed text of the agreement also includes all the basic idea that it is an absolute surrender - and nothing else! Speculation about something else are unnecessary.
these six sections might very well be the same territorial claims as before, just wrapped up in a harsher language.
My point is that in March we only had a Soviet proposal, we can't know what the end result would have been, if had Finland agreed to continue negotiations. The article you refer to, indicated to me that the initial Soviet terms in June where phrased in a harsher language than in March.
I only know the end result and that was financialy less demanding and Hankko swapped with Porkala.
Added -
Trying to read google translate of the second last pragarph in the article of Martti Turtola:
Doesn't that means that the June proposal with "unconditional surrender of the Finnish armed forces" where the harshest while the March and the actual September signed treaty where more close to each other?Miksi tämä synkein vaihtoehto ei sitten toteutunut? Minun tulkintani on se, että ratkaisu tapahtui Tienhaarassa, Viipurinlahdella, Talissa, Ihantalan kirkolla, Äyräpäässä ja Ilomantsissa. Torjuntavoitot näillä alueilla ja todellinen voitto Ilomantsissa pakottivat Stalinin valitsemaan uudelleen poliittisen ratkaisun tien eli ottamaan kevään esityksen hieman lievennettynä uudelleen esiin.
(as long we don't know what political and territorial demands where made in June)
Please advice.
/John T
