Has Glantz improved?

[Art]

For Leningrad Front it seems like it does.

Not quite so. From a Volume IV of the "History of the Great Patriotic War" (1962):

After taking Vyborg combat action on the Karelian Isthmus continued for three weeks.......
On 11 July 1944 according to instructions of the Stavka forces of the Leningrad Front switched to defense.

Volume IX of the "History of World War II"(1978):

After taking Vyborg the Stavka clarified tasks for the Leningrad Front. In the directive from 21 June it was said that the Front was to take with its main forces the line Imatra-Lappeenranta-Virojoki and with part of forces to advance to Keksholm, Elisenvaara and clear the Karelian Isthmus north-east of Vuoksa River and Vuoksa Lake. Carrying out these instructions the front's forces continued the offensive.
....
...the Stavka ordered the Leningrad Front to switch to defense on the line reached previously beginning from 12 July 1944.

In both cases it was said explicitly the offesnive continued after 20 June until mid-July although there was only a succinct (several paragraphs basically) mention of events of these three weeks. At the same time there the "official" end of the Vyborg operation was 20 June indeed, see the Soviet military encyclopedia. So historiography was somewhat inconsequential at this point.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Art,

If you scroll to the notes at the bottom of Ziemke's account, you will see that he cites only a single Soviet source, and that is not a primary one.

I would suggest that Ziemke's account might suffer even more from "one-sidedness" than Glantz is being accused of!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Art]

Well, Ziemke certainly has to few information on the Soviet side, especially almost nothing on planning. He also has some strange statements (Finns didn't plan to defend Vyborg - what?). On the other hand his account is larger and fills some blank spots of Glantz and House, that is why I think it is better.

[antwony]

To any of the Finnish forum members, if Glantz's work does not do an adequate job at detailing the Finnish front, are there any general histories of the Eastern Front that do?

I'm not sure if any of these works have appeared in English. But, there was a glut of, Finnish language, research coming out (semi-) recently trying to "correct" Cold War misconceptions of Finnish World War 2 history, in particular focusing on German involvement in the summer of 1944. The most Finnish Stronkian of these researchers even came up with a term torjuntavoitto (which I'm not going to translate as it doesn't make any sense in English) implying that Finland won WW2.

Their main point was that Finland had some censorship going on post WW2, which was a fair enough point. Historical relations between Finland- Nazi/ Imperial Germany had been downplayed for political reasons (also pretty much true) and that the "victory" in eastern Finland in 1944 was due to the Germans, which is extremely problematic/ totally wrong on multiple levels.

As I said, I'm not sure if that kind of stuff has been translated. Also I wouldn't be surprised if older material, translated from Finnish to English, concerning Finland in World War 2 has a massive political bias (in my experience mainly hard Left/ seriously hippy, new Marxist "Nordic third way")/ has been censored.

As for Glantz, judging from the quotes he has seemed to have watered down the Pravda approved cool-aid he's been drinking. But, he still uses the word sordid to describe the relationship between Finland and Nazi Germany, which is enough for me to not read anything else he writes.

Hi Art,

If you scroll to the notes at the bottom of Ziemke's account, you will see that he cites only a single Soviet source, and that is not a primary one.

I would suggest that Ziemke's account might suffer even more from "one-sidedness" than Glantz is being accused of!

Cheers,

Sid.

That's the disappointing thing, for me, with that extract of Ziemke that Art posted. Very one-sided i.e. all German, and while his German sources may have understood the situation in Finland in the summer of 1944 well, don't think Ziemke really understood what his sources were saying.

Starts off with talking about how Finland had been left behind by the technological advances of the war (fair one) then goes to talk about how they'd misinterpreted Russian SIGINT, which, as far as I'm aware was a technological area that Finland was quite excellent at (Finns were/ had been stationed in Germany running training courses for Germany Sigs/Int personnel).

He seems to be aware that East Karelia was a war aim for Finland, but doesn't correlate that with the Finnish Army's lack of strength on the Karelian Isthmus. He mentions Finnish units getting transferred from eastern Karelia into the Karelian Isthmus, but doesn't seem to get how that changed the balance of forces in the later stages of fighting.

As with, seemingly, every account of summer 1944, he mentions the E-boats rushing panzerfausts/shrecks to Finland. In common with every other account, he doesn't mention that most of these never made it to the front and that the majority of handheld AT weapons that were used had arrived much earlier. He also mentions shipment of tanks, without the caveat that the tanks used in combat had arrived in 1943, the 1944 shipments entered service post war. He claims the German 112 DIv repulsed the landings in Viipuri bay, which is a very problematic claim. Furthermore he describes this division as having just arrived, which is true. He doesn't mention that even before it "repulsed" the landings it had been ordered to leave Finland, which it did straight after that battle.

Finnish sources barely mention the 112 division. If there was one thing the Finnish army wasn't short of in mid/ late 1944 it was understrength inf divs and it's involvement was short and not particularly meaningful. Finnish sources do mention (not always favourably) the 303 Assault Gun Brigade, the Germans only other ground contribution to the fighting there then, which was used in vitally important battles. Also the air detachment gets a lot of attention in Finnish sources. It's contribution was very valued.

To give credit to Ziemke, he does mention food, which is often ignored by non Finnish (and some Finnish) sources as being shipped to Finland from Germany to FInland in summer 1944. The better Finnish sources I've read discuss the food situation extensively.

Oh yes, and from the Finnish perspective, the extract of Ziemke stops just when the fighting got really, really, really serious.

Even worse, the next chapter in the extract Art posted discusses Partisan's. Opposed to what Hollywood will tell you, Soviet Partisans were sub ISIS level "human" filth who specialise in raping and murdering children.

So, yes a B for effort (read a lot of reasonably accurate German sources) for ZIemke, a D+ for effect.

P.S. Torjuntavoitto = Defensive Victory, which can (I suppose) be considered two words which can be compounded together to create a grammatically correct, logical, concept. There is no word for oxymoron in Finnish.

[John Hilly]

There's a new book in English about Finland at war. I haven't read it, but I've heard good things about it.
More here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1961680

With best, J-P

[krimsonglass51]

I'm not sure if any of these works have appeared in English. But, there was a glut of, Finnish language, research coming out (semi-) recently trying to "correct" Cold War misconceptions of Finnish World War 2 history, in particular focusing on German involvement in the summer of 1944. The most Finnish Stronkian of these researchers even came up with a term torjuntavoitto (which I'm not going to translate as it doesn't make any sense in English) implying that Finland won WW2.

By defensive victory, you mean that the Finnish military beat back the Soviet offensive in 1944 and negotiated their way to an acceptible armistice right?

I guess my other question would be if these researchers acknowledge that Finland fought in WWII unlike how during the war they claimed their fight against the Soviets and Germans were unrelated to the war in Europe?

[antwony]

By defensive victory, you mean that the Finnish military beat back the Soviet offensive in 1944 and negotiated their way to an acceptible armistice right?

When you put it like that, the terms sounds sensible The guys I'm thinking about aren't that sensible... armchair generals who've gotten themselves a publishing deal.

To be honest, I'm perhaps making a bit of a strawman argument. "These researchers" I'm talking about have featured in stories I've read in the paper. To get in the paper, and talk about how the Germans won the war, presume they must have written a book sometime. Couldn't name you any of these revisionist Finnish historians.

I guess my other question would be if these researchers acknowledge that Finland fought in WWII unlike how during the war they claimed their fight against the Soviets and Germans were unrelated to the war in Europe?

Think you're misrepresenting, or have misunderstood, the Finnish perspective on World War 2. The use of the terms; Winter War, Continuation War and Lapland War aren't meant to imply they weren't part of WW2.

In FInland the term erillissota is often used to discuss aspects of the Continuation War. Erillissota could be translated as seperate war, but it's used to differentiate between Finland and Germany's war aims, not differentiate the Continuation War from WW2.

Erillissota is a term Finnish professional historians are very much into, at present. I'm not talking about some dude from the paper talking crazy. Every academically trained Historian, in Finland, is an "expert" on how seperate Finland and Germany were in WW2.

If that's what you mean by unrelated, then yes. Populist, and professional, historians in Finland are revising terms which are political loaded i.e. seperate war (Continuation War is also a political term).

[Caselius]

I'm not sure if any of these works have appeared in English. But, there was a glut of, Finnish language, research coming out (semi-) recently trying to "correct" Cold War misconceptions of Finnish World War 2 history, in particular focusing on German involvement in the summer of 1944. The most Finnish Stronkian of these researchers even came up with a term torjuntavoitto (which I'm not going to translate as it doesn't make any sense in English) implying that Finland won WW2.

P.S. Torjuntavoitto = Defensive Victory, which can (I suppose) be considered two words which can be compounded together to create a grammatically correct, logical, concept. There is no word for oxymoron in Finnish.

I think that is slightly simplified view on what the overlook is to 1944. I doubt many historians or researchers think the WW2 was a Finnish victory in the most specific way.

The term torjuntavoitto is usually related to some of the battles fought in 1944, however not every one of them can be coined as such. So it could be said that Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive was not a defensive/replusive victory, however it culminated on series of such.

The result of the war is up to some serious discussion, overall it could be said that the 1944 operations were limited success for the Soviets, however they failed to advance beyond Vyborg, Äyräpää, U-line and Ilomantsi.

When looking at Finland, it did not manage to hold the old border in the isthmus or the occupied areas in the Eastern Karelia. However, what Finland succeeded in was halting the attempts to get further in the country. Like I said, the result can be talked over again but it's nowhere as simple. Not even in the Finnish understanding of it. Can't be said that the war was "torjuntavoitto" but specific battles were.

The term, I don't see anything strategically or tactically wrong about it. It could be translated also as "Repluse Victory". Such term is usually associated in battles where defensive side "repulses" the attacking side. Could be said in such victory the attacking side fails to achieve their intended goals and the defensive side succeeds at holding them.

In FInland the term erillissota is often used to discuss aspects of the Continuation War. Erillissota could be translated as seperate war, but it's used to differentiate between Finland and Germany's war aims, not differentiate the Continuation War from WW2.

Erillissota is a term Finnish professional historians are very much into, at present. I'm not talking about some dude from the paper talking crazy. Every academically trained Historian, in Finland, is an "expert" on how seperate Finland and Germany were in WW2.

If that's what you mean by unrelated, then yes. Populist, and professional, historians in Finland are revising terms which are political loaded i.e. seperate war (Continuation War is also a political term).

I don't get what you mean by this. Whom do you mean exactly?

Overall, personally I haven't seen any revisionism recently towards the "erillissota", the development overall has been in the opposite direction as more studies and researches have been made.

I must remind that most of such theories existed already in 1960's such as "ajopuuteoria" according to which Finland didn't get to decide what they did and Finland was just dragged on the German side.

Currently "koskiveneteoria" is more widely understood the right. According to the current form of it Finland did its own decisions on cooperating with Germany according to the circumstances present.

Currently popular historical understanding in Finland to "erillissota" thesis (especially by "newer" historians) is that the cooperation between Finland and Germany was extensive so it couldn't be fully said that the war goals are separate.

However, it can't be said that the both nations were de facto allied during the war and they had some differences in operating, like the much discussed halting of advance in winter 1941 even against German demands.

The way which way it folds (erillissota or not?) is yet under discussion and it's quite divided at the moment:

According to quite known historian, Ohto Manninen the Finnish decisions were caused by the circumstances and he highlights the specialty of the foreign relations compared to other Axis nations.

Of other known historians, Markku Jokisipilä and Oula Silvennoinen highlight the nature of the cooperation and oppose the erillissota thesis.

[antwony]

The term, I don't see anything strategically or tactically wrong about it. It could be translated also as "Repluse Victory". Such term is usually associated in battles where defensive side "repulses" the attacking side. Could be said in such victory the attacking side fails to achieve their intended goals and the defensive side succeeds at holding them.

Sure, I'd basically agree with that. There are legitimate (i.e not insane) ways to talk about Finnish victories in WW2.

I don't get what you mean by this. Whom do you mean exactly?

Overall, personally I haven't seen any revisionism recently towards the "erillissota", the development overall has been in the opposite direction as more studies and researches have been made.

I didn't really get what Krimson Glass was trying to say, so I was trying to be non specific in my reply.

I wasn't trying to go towards, or away from, the erillissota. The only way Krimson Glass's comment could make any sense, to me, was if he was talking about erillissota so I was just giving an overview on where I think the dialogue on that subject presently is.

Would caution any English speakers who read any of Upton's work that his opinion's on Finland's relationship with Germany could be considered a bit out of date.

Thanks, Caselius, for translating the final paragraphs of https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erillissotateesi into English

[krimsonglass51]

I didn't really get what Krimson Glass was trying to say, so I was trying to be non specific in my reply.

I wasn't trying to go towards, or away from, the erillissota. The only way Krimson Glass's comment could make any sense, to me, was if he was talking about erillissota so I was just giving an overview on where I think the dialogue on that subject presently is.

Would caution any English speakers who read any of Upton's work that his opinion's on Finland's relationship with Germany could be considered a bit out of date.

I apologize if what I was trying to say was not clear. Basically, I've encountered people who have claimed that the Continuation War and Lapland War were not part of WWII (at least from the Finnish perspective). There was a quote made by a Finnish general during WWII that claimed the Continuation War was not related to the war in Europe that I don't have access to at the moment since I am at work.

I guess from what I've read from Finnish academics like the late Max Jakobson and other more recent authors, Finns (or at least ones who understand history) agree with you that the notion of "separate war" means "part of WWII, but not the same objectives as Nazi Germany."

[antwony]

I apologize if what I was trying to say was not clear. Basically, I've encountered people who have claimed that the Continuation War and Lapland War were not part of WWII (at least from the Finnish perspective). There was a quote made by a Finnish general during WWII that claimed the Continuation War was not related to the war in Europe that I don't have access to at the moment since I am at work.

I guess from what I've read from Finnish academics like the late Max Jakobson and other more recent authors, Finns (or at least ones who understand history) agree with you that the notion of "separate war" means "part of WWII, but not the same objectives as Nazi Germany."

There's no need to apologise. Foolishly thought no Finn could be stupid enough to say anything like that and I was trying to come up with a response that was based on some kind of reality.

That general sounds like he has some opinions... Was it General Ehrnrooth? Top fella Ehrnrooth, but he had opinions about stuff.

I've read Jakobson's Myth and Reality book. Don't necessarily agree with his writing, but he's very much part of the Finnish political mainstream and his opinions are "very Finnish". Or, at least, a good representation of mainstream Finnish thought of his period, which makes his works kind of important.

[Caselius]

Yeah, I suppose there is not much support for separate war in that sense. Claiming it wouldn't be part of the bigger picture is not convenient.

Thanks, Caselius, for translating the final paragraphs of https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erillissotateesi into English

I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic remark or not.
I might have looked there as well to see if there is links for historians whom support and do not support. The opposition and support is still very imminent in the discussion.

My point still stands, however. The standing view or trend according to the mainstream, especially younger generation of the Finnish historians at the moment is that definition of "erillissota" is incorrect as the cooperation between Germany and Finland was more in-depth than previously presented.

There were both common and not-so common goals in the war which make approximating whether Finland was just thinking of it's own goals in the war or also thinking the Germany's goals tricky as well, however previously the mainstream research leaned to the "co-belligerents and different goals" direction.

Most of such theories such as erillissota and ajopuuteoria were coined during Cold War era when Finland wanted to step away from further associating with Germany in World War 2. Like said, Cold War misconceptions. There however was some politically motivated (critique and patriotism respectively) times in 1970's and in 1990's. Since late 1990's critique for those theories has expanded.

These theories however became challenged when proper access to archives and other documents became available. What is the case is that these views didn't get much following outside Finland and now support for such theories is quite low here even now.

I think the new "Hitler's Nordic Ally?" book is about the same specifics of Finland in WWII as well (someone whom has read can perhaps specify), from what I've heard it is very good as well. Will need to check it out personally.

[Aleksander P]

I feel like there are misconceptions surrounding the phrase torjuntavoitto. It only implies that Finland was able to repel some of the Soviet attempts to advance further into Finland. No serious scholar would claim that Finland won the war through that.

[krimsonglass51]

That general sounds like he has some opinions... Was it General Ehrnrooth? Top fella Ehrnrooth, but he had opinions about stuff.

The following quote is attributed to Finnish Foreign Minister Vaino Tanner in September 1941:

Although we happen to be brothers-in-arms of Germany, there is no difference of opinion among us that our war concerns Finland alone. We have no part in the World War, and we do not want to become involved in its battles.

(from Finland in World War II, pg 115, John Wuorinen)

[Seppo Koivisto]

The following quote is attributed to Finnish Foreign Minister Vaino Tanner in September 1941:

Although we happen to be brothers-in-arms of Germany, there is no difference of opinion among us that our war concerns Finland alone. We have no part in the World War, and we do not want to become involved in its battles.

(from Finland in World War II, pg 115, John Wuorinen)

I think we must remember that before Pearl Harbour "the World War" was Germany's war against the Allies. Tanner just takes distance from the German war effort.