"Liberation" of Eastern Karelia.

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
Loofy
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 01:29
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

#106

Post by Loofy » 29 Nov 2004, 20:48

Snow is falling but it is melting quickly. I guess global warming exists after all. If a location never has snow - it is too hot for me :).

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#107

Post by Harri » 29 Nov 2004, 21:18

Loofy wrote:Oh boy :). Now I know how a lamb feels when it mingles in the wolf pack.
Before I explain why Karelians consider Karelian Isthmus as Karelian even with the current Russian, and previously Finnish populations, let me explain something to Hari.
I am a Karelian however I speak little Karelian - under Soviet leadership our language was not promoted and in schools we had to speak Russian. Karelian is very slowly coming back since Karelia obtained vast autonomy (Enclosed tribal lands I've mentioned before) within the Russian federation after 1991. Do you speak any Karelian? It might be possible for you to understand the few words I know. Finnish and Karelian are different - I strongly doubt you will understand what I will say. No need to question my heritage Hari - I do not pry into your ancestory.
Sorry, Loofy. Many things of which you wrote just made me think you are actually Russian, only born in Karelia. Theere was - I would say - "a Soviet tune" but I don't blame you of that. As far as I know Karelian State is still ruled by the Russians, actually had been since Finnish Reds were superseded by Russians in the mid 1930's.

We Finns are rather well aware of the history of Soviet Karelia because also Red Finns were there in the 1920's and early 1930's. Their plans (which Moscow had accepted) were rather similar to plans of AKS: Greater Finland. Reds planned of course Greater Soviet Finland which would have been part of USSR and AKS supported the idea that several Finno-Ugric tribes should have lived in one country: Finland. That kind of ideas were common everywhere at the beginning of the 20th Century before the idea of "national state" superseded the earlied ideas.

No, I don't speak Karelian but Karelian language is the closest relative language to Finnish, much closer each others than Estonian and Finnish. Finnish soldiers could easily understand people speaking Karelian language in the 1940's. I think the basic grammar is almost identical to Finnish? Only some words are different but at least Eastern Finnish dialects have lots of common words.
Loofy wrote:Regarding my grandfather's brother. Stalin moved Jews to the outskirts of the Soviet Union - and one of those outskirts was Karelia. There is a small Jewish population in Karelia but it has been dwindling with the exodus to Israel.
Interesting. Perhaps Finnish researhers who are currently inspecting how many Jews Finland actually delivered to Germany during the war would need more info on these people too?
Loofy wrote:Why do some Karelians consider Karelian Isthmus as Karelian? (this would be a point to Tero) Karelians originally inhabited Northern and Western edges of Lake Ladoga and the Karelian isthmus. Sweden and Russia fought multiple wars since medieval times. Finns fought on the Swedish side and were Lutheran while the Russians took us over and converted to Orthodox religion and Karelians fought on their side. Sweden was victorious in early 17th century and at the peace of Stolbova of 1617 - Karelians were pushed eastward to the region between Ladoga and Onega (present day Petroskoi). Our lands were then taken by immigrants from Swedish Finland. Thus our original homeland remained Karelian in name only. This is why Karelians consider this area as part of the region of Karelia - even though the Russians placed it as a part of the Leningrad oblast. Our chance of taking the Karelian Isthmus into the republic of Karelia is about the same chance of Finland taking it from the Russians.
Yes, I'm well aware of that too. I just wonder why this area is better under Soviet/Russian rule that in Finnish rule? We Finns are the closest relatives of Karelians. A large partion of Finns consider themselves Karelian Finns (including me) and our "home" is the area you called "Western Karelia". For us Western Karelia is Karelian Isthmus and Ladogan Karelia. Some of the Finns were also Orthodoxes, especially many Karelian Finns. Majority of them lived in the area USSR stole from Finland in 1940 and 1944. Lutheran and Orthodox churches are equal in Finland and have been officially at least since 1920's (in practice much earlier). There is no "faith war" between them.

At least my ancestors have lived in Northern Karelian Isthmus as long as the written history of Finland is possible to go backwards i.e. since 16th Century. Finns consider ceded areas purely Finnish. Religion does not mean anything in this.

Actually the borders were closed as late as in the 1920's. Before that border was only a line in the map and people could live and go accross the border as they wished. That ended when USSR closed their borders and "the curtain of iron" was raised for the first time.
Loofy wrote:If you want to look up about the native populations of Ladoga and Karelian Isthmus grab these books.
And Hari, once again, any Karelian living in Finland who misses their homeland should come back to it. There is a lot of land here, there is an economic boom (less than Finland of course - but greater than most of Russia), and Karelians are welcome there. If you stipulate that the region has to go to Finland then you are thinking of Finnish territorial acquisition not of Karelian patriotism (assuming you are a Finnish of Karelian descent). Yes there is an overwhelming Russian population here but I was never mistreated by them the few times I mentioned I was Karelian. Personally I consider myself Karelian first and Russian second, perhaps that is the big difference in our views.
I think I know that part of our history well. Like Hanski said all Karelian Finns consider themselves Finns first and Karelians second. Finnish and Soviet cultures were so different that there was no doubt that nobody would have wanted to live under Soviet rule.

Some Karelian Finns have now returned and many visit their old home areas regularly. Lots of Finns have sent request to Moscow that the lands would be returned back to their (lagal) owners.

When I for the very first time visited Karelian Isthmus in 1989 my first impression was that the nature was very beautiful (as I had heard) but certain areas were "raped" by population that doesn't belong to that area. They didn't take care of anything! All older people were very angry when they saw the results of 50 years Soviet rule. They all asked: "why did Russians take our lands and then they ruined everything?"
Loofy wrote:Regarding siege of Leningrad. Siege is the English term. Here (Karelia) and in Russia we use the term "blockade". Finland did not participate in the siege of Leningrad but blockaded the entrances. For Russians at least, the question comes down to - not whether someone participated in the bombing of Leningrad but how many food convoys were allowed to pass to the starving population. But like I said, Leningrad is a Russian issue - and I am a Karelian. I strongly suggest - for those Finns who visit Pietari - to visit the Blockade museum.
OK. Finns stopped their advance in Karelian Isthmus about when they reached the old border. Finnish and German troops didn't actively operate together against Leningrad (except the Finnish-German-Italian joint naval group in Lake Ladoga in the summer 1942 with bad results.) Finns don't see had any part in sieging or blockading Leningrad. It was purely a Soviet choice to stay in Leningrad. To me there is no reason to blame Finns in this case and I don't think many Russians who know more about history do so nowadays.
Loofy wrote:I do enjoy nativy pies. In Russian a pie is pirog/pirozhki.
Yes: karjalan piirakka [Karelian pie] with some munavoi [egg butter ( butter with egg)]. And sultsinat!
Loofy wrote:I am sure I missed some points you brought up. I'll try to go over them in a future post.
Me too. But I have time to discuss whenever is needed. See you! :)


Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#108

Post by Mark V » 29 Nov 2004, 22:41

Tero wrote:
Those 400 000 refugees left because they were Finns first, Karelians second.

se pommikoneiden aalto
yllä tuon uinuvan maan
ajoi hiljaisen, harmaan kulkueemme
lumeen kahlaamaan
ensin sai jokainen nähdä
sen maailmanpalonsa
oli miehen jokaisen poltettava
oma talonsa

aina kun tulitus loppuu
taas jatkaa taivallustaan
ryhmä vaivainen, joka ehdi ei
jäädä taakseen katsomaan
kun loppumattomaan lumeen
hautautui pikkuveli
taivaan verenpunasta kuvastui
se naurava pyöveli

kuolemanpataljoonat kulkee takana
edessämme on maisema kuin lakana
meidän leirimme täytyy muuttaa uudelleen
joko rajan yli tai taivaaseen
kuolemanpataljoonat kulkee takana
edessämme on maisema kuin lakana
meidän leirimme täytyy muuttaa uudelleen
joko rajan yli tai taivaaseen


credit: Timo Rautiainen. http://netti.nic.fi/~mattlar/niskalauka ... ntark4.jpg

Sorry about Finnish text (these words could only be said in Finnish), our international friends. Something about men burning their own homes denying shelter of them from invaders (an significance you could not really understand unless you have faced winter temperatures here - it is death or shelter) which is the ultimate sacrifice in modern warfare for me. Houses were well cleaned by women, not an spot of dust could be found - bottles of gasoline and matches were set to kitchen table so that last retreating Finnish soldiers could do their job properly and easily - but in many cases men of border districts did ask permission from their units to take care personally that thorough job is done... the burden and pride of those men is unbelievable.

Last sentence is: Our camp must be moved again, across border, or to the afterlife.

An story of Karelian tribe.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

#109

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Nov 2004, 00:53

Loofy wrote:Oh boy :). Now I know how a lamb feels when it mingles in the wolf pack.
As Hanski wrote, no need to worry, we take good care of you :wink:
Image


I am a Karelian however I speak little Karelian - under Soviet leadership our language was not promoted and in schools we had to speak Russian. Karelian is very slowly coming back since Karelia obtained vast autonomy (Enclosed tribal lands I've mentioned before) within the Russian federation after 1991. Do you speak any Karelian? It might be possible for you to understand the few words I know. Finnish and Karelian are different - I strongly doubt you will understand what I will say.

Specially the modern Karelian language isn't that hard for us to understand:
Attachments
2004.11.29 001.jpg
I have once been at Petroskoi, together with a juvenile choir of local congregation. Here a pic of a poster about it.
2004.11.29 001.jpg (31.02 KiB) Viewed 1390 times
aapinen.4.jpg
aapinen.4.jpg (25.08 KiB) Viewed 1390 times
aapinen.jpg
aapinen.jpg (35.51 KiB) Viewed 1390 times

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#110

Post by Topspeed » 30 Nov 2004, 08:48

Juha Tompuri wrote: Specially the modern Karelian language isn't that hard for us to understand:
Well kaakko being liideh in the compass is slightly misleading, but yes looks like it is understandable about 97%. Also länsi ja itä and etelä have gone ( east = sunrise west = sunsetting and south=summer ) ?

regards,

Juke :wink:

PS: the chorus poster is apparently written in foreign language of curillic alphabets...: )

Loofy
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 01:29
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

#111

Post by Loofy » 01 Dec 2004, 00:52

I'll oblige a translation

Order Committee of Petrozavodsk city
Soviet of National Representatives

Cooperative "Seura" in teaching Finnish language.

Adolescent
Church Choir

conducted by G. Mullukoski
(Finland)

Social welfare concert
at the Finnish theater building

7th December 1990 begins at 19:00

8th December 1990 begins at 15:00

Tickets are sold at the ticket office of the Finnish Theater.
OK. Finns stopped their advance in Karelian Isthmus about when they reached the old border. Finnish and German troops didn't actively operate together against Leningrad (except the Finnish-German-Italian joint naval group in Lake Ladoga in the summer 1942 with bad results.) Finns don't see had any part in sieging or blockading Leningrad. It was purely a Soviet choice to stay in Leningrad. To me there is no reason to blame Finns in this case and I don't think many Russians who know more about history do so nowadays.
For most citizens of Leningrad (I prefer St.Petersburg as I am a big fan of Peter the Great) it is a deep emotional historical moment - the blockade of Leningrad in which 100,000s died due to starvation. To most Russians the blame belongs to the German army and Hitler's directive #21 and partially the Finnish army for preventing food supplies from entering the city. Leaving one's home (and I wasn't born in Leningrad) is a terrible choice both for nationalists who saw it as a cradle of Russian culture and the communists who saw it as a birthplace of communism. I am sure most people, if they knew what would happen in the next 3 years, would have chosen to leave - but many stayed. My grandfather was lucky.

I have poor opinion of the Soviet system - especially the kommissariat, the NKVD (The massacre at Katyn - previously not spoken off pre 1991) and its leadership - Stalin. Perhaps one of the few things I feel with the Russians would be Leningrad because of its proximity to Karelia.
Sorry, Loofy. Many things of which you wrote just made me think you are actually Russian, only born in Karelia. Theere was - I would say - "a Soviet tune" but I don't blame you of that. As far as I know Karelian State is still ruled by the Russians, actually had been since Finnish Reds were superseded by Russians in the mid 1930's.
Karelians do not discriminate against Russians and they don't discriminate against us. If they are born in Karelia we welcome them here. I noticed that Russians who are born here also tend to follow my view and act Karelian. How Karelian am I? Well I am wearing a Kalevala T-shirt with a viking riding a motorcycle right now. :)

On another topic - I found it amusing that Conservative supporters of President Bush in US called Finland "a socialist hellhole". It's interesting that communism may have been defeated but Marx's socialist tendencies are spread in the most liberal and democratic countries in the EU.

http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/ ... 1820791516

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002, 08:06
Location: Finland

#112

Post by Tero » 01 Dec 2004, 07:14

By Loofy
...the blame belongs to the German army and Hitler's directive #21 and partially the Finnish army for preventing food supplies from entering the city.
How did the Finns prevent food supplies from entering the city, exactly ?
Karelians do not discriminate against Russians and they don't discriminate against us.
Mostly because most (practically all) Karelians are Russians while hardly any Russians are Karelians ? ;)
If they are born in Karelia we welcome them here. I noticed that Russians who are born here also tend to follow my view and act Karelian.
How do you "act Karelian" ? You have not learned the language, I trust you have not taken to Karelian customs which are not in line with Russian customs.
On another topic - I found it amusing that Conservative supporters of President Bush in US called Finland "a socialist hellhole". It's interesting that communism may have been defeated but Marx's socialist tendencies are spread in the most liberal and democratic countries in the EU.
That has been the case from 1918 onwards. These "tendencies" were picked up because of the excesses of both Communism and Capitalism in Germany and elsewhere after WWI.

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002, 08:06
Location: Finland

#113

Post by Tero » 01 Dec 2004, 07:27

By Topspeed
American books of those local conditions might lack all necessary detailed information.
Actually, Loofy says he does not trust Finnish and German books on the subject. If this is true he should start mistrusting the American books as well because the American books are based on the German sources and it was the Germans who were instrumental in doing the research for the American books. There has been very little independent American (or original English language for that matter) research done on the Finnish involvement. The only one I can think of is by Ries. But since his Cold Will is heavily "biased" in favour of the Finnish POV which is in serious contradiction with the prevailing Anglo-American POV his work is not well spread in the Anglo-American circles.

Moreover, in the (VERY) few American books which have the Finnish involvement described in any detail you can taste the taste of sour grapes the German researchers have injected into the data.

EDIT: And When Titans Clashed is pure unadulterated Soviet canon when it comes to describing the events in the Finnish front.
Some finnish commandos only returned in 1955 from USSR since they were labelled as terrorists. One prisoner just was on tv..weighed 38 kilos with clothes on in the soviet prison camp.
IMO it is more accurate to call them LRRP, not commandoes. This because their main objective was to gather data, not cause havoc.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#114

Post by Topspeed » 01 Dec 2004, 20:28

Loofy wrote:
For most citizens of Leningrad (I prefer St.Petersburg as I am a big fan of Peter the Great) it is a deep emotional historical moment - the blockade of Leningrad in which 100,000s died due to starvation.

http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/ ... 1820791516
Loofy,

Comrade Stalin was also agreat fan of Peter the Great. He was like Ramses II of Egypt wasn't he..a great soldier and a builder a conquerer even ?

I think that about 100 000 finnish related people died during Stalins purges in 1937-1953. It was great tragedy for both parties of the conflict. Ingrians and Karelians close to border of Finland were deported to Siberia as well. Especially cruel was the end of finns who came from USA to build a dream society in USSR. They were massacred in large groups by NKVD.

Socialist hellhole is an overstatement, but socialdemocracy is system that is kinda a halfway solution between communism and capitalism. In Finland also center party is pretty big..third is conservative party.

rgds,

Juke

Loofy
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 01:29
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

#115

Post by Loofy » 01 Dec 2004, 22:10

I think you misunderstood me. I have never supported Stalin - only hardcore communists today support him and I, and none of my family, ever were communists. Admiration of Peter the Great comes from him westernizing Russia and opening its doors to the West. All Stalin did was build factories and butcher millions. I blame the man for USSR's unpreparedness on June 22 1941.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#116

Post by Harri » 02 Dec 2004, 00:51

Loofy wrote:For most citizens of Leningrad (I prefer St.Petersburg as I am a big fan of Peter the Great) it is a deep emotional historical moment - the blockade of Leningrad in which 100,000s died due to starvation. To most Russians the blame belongs to the German army and Hitler's directive #21 and partially the Finnish army for preventing food supplies from entering the city. Leaving one's home (and I wasn't born in Leningrad) is a terrible choice both for nationalists who saw it as a cradle of Russian culture and the communists who saw it as a birthplace of communism. I am sure most people, if they knew what would happen in the next 3 years, would have chosen to leave - but many stayed. My grandfather was lucky.
Did majority of these people actually had other choice but stay? I mean Soviet regime needed Leningrad's industry and most workers had to stay there. I think that is what actually happened. It was a clear decision made.

Germans on the other hand had plans to starve people of Leningrad and conquer the city later. Finns had nothing to do with these plans because they were made by the Germans alone. Finns would have liked that Germans had attacked and conquered the city straight away in the summer 1941 because that would have released strong Finnish forces away from Karelian Isthmus and some of the troops could have been disbanded. In the actual situation Finns could only stay on the old border and wait. Finnish troops and aircraft didn't attack against Leningrad during the "blockade". It was a solely Germans' operation.
Loofy wrote:I have poor opinion of the Soviet system - especially the kommissariat, the NKVD (The massacre at Katyn - previously not spoken off pre 1991) and its leadership - Stalin. Perhaps one of the few things I feel with the Russians would be Leningrad because of its proximity to Karelia.
OK.
Loofy wrote:Karelians do not discriminate against Russians and they don't discriminate against us. If they are born in Karelia we welcome them here. I noticed that Russians who are born here also tend to follow my view and act Karelian. How Karelian am I? Well I am wearing a Kalevala T-shirt with a viking riding a motorcycle right now.
Kalevala T-shirt? 8O Damn man, you really must have Finno-Ugric blood in your veins! I think no American or Russian would do that! :wink:

This is perhaps quite personal and off-topic question but I think you are a right person to answere this. I think most (at least many) Karelians have Russian names (in a similar way Finns had Swedish names earlier), right? If you speak Russian and have also Russian name, how do you differ from eachothers (Russians and Karelians)? I mean isn't it much harder to discriminate persons who are almost identical? Or are you so similar actually, do you see or feel any differences?
Loofy wrote:On another topic - I found it amusing that Conservative supporters of President Bush in US called Finland "a socialist hellhole". It's interesting that communism may have been defeated but Marx's socialist tendencies are spread in the most liberal and democratic countries in the EU.
Well, the most likely reason for that kind of statements is that these people have never been in Finland and don't know anything about Finland. They just repeat what they have heard someone said. Finland has sometimes been called as "the most American country in Europe". I think that most likely means the values, thinking and behaviour of Finns rather than our society which is different from the American closer to Canadian one. Many European Social Democrats of today are much rightist than some rightists actually are. :lol:

User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

#117

Post by Jari » 02 Dec 2004, 02:21

Loofy wrote:(I prefer St.Petersburg as I am a big fan of Peter the Great)
An off-topic comment, but considering where this thread has gone, what the heck :lol: : to be precise, I believe that Sankt Peterburg wasn't named so after Peter I but after Apostle Peter, hence the "Saint" prefix. Of course, Tsar Peter being such a modest fellow probably knew that people would get the hint even that way...

About the blockade of Leningrad, well, I suppose if the plight of the civilians inside the city had mattered to Finnish leadership, then some shipments of humanitarian help like medication or evacuation of wounded could have been arranged. But at the time that would probably have been unthinkable, as Russians were bombing Finnish cities themselves. I wonder what would the Finnish stance have been if Winter War hadn't taken place and Leningrad was similarily sieged in 1941 by Germans alone, though? What kind of possibilities would Finland have had in such situation to help the people of Leningrad (assuming that this was desired) without risking her neutrality in the eyes of Germany?

Finns tend to be squirmish when it comes to discussing the coalition or cooperation with Germans at that time out of fear of being considered equals with Nazis. Considering the standards of Soviet historiography in the past that fear has been understandable. It's better to accept the fact that Finland jumped into the German bandwagon in order to advance her personal interests, not because of being enthusiastic about the role that Germany sought in Europe or because of admiring the moral qualities of Hitler. And as long as those personal interests were protected, it wouldn't matter what Hitler did on his own part. Finland was helping Germany in the siege of Leningrad (even if in her own little way) and totally denying that would be strange, yet it means that Finland had only a minor role in that.

User avatar
Earldor
Member
Posts: 351
Joined: 27 Mar 2003, 01:35
Location: Finland

#118

Post by Earldor » 02 Dec 2004, 17:10

Jari wrote: About the blockade of Leningrad, well, I suppose if the plight of the civilians inside the city had mattered to Finnish leadership, then some shipments of humanitarian help like medication or evacuation of wounded could have been arranged. But at the time that would probably have been unthinkable, as Russians were bombing Finnish cities themselves.
That would have been an unheard of act of humanitarianism which wasn't realistic politically or militarily in the situation. Think about it, that would happen only in a semi-perfect world. A perfect world would not have any wars.
I wonder what would the Finnish stance have been if Winter War hadn't taken place and Leningrad was similarily sieged in 1941 by Germans alone, though?
I don't think that the situation would have been that much different. As you say a bit further down, Finland would have been in a precarious situation and would most likely have done its best to stay out of the conflict. Any partial action would have been interpreted as taking sides by the two warring parties. Also, you have to remember that Finland had hardly enough resources to feed her own population.
Finland was helping Germany in the siege of Leningrad (even if in her own little way) and totally denying that would be strange, yet it means that Finland had only a minor role in that.
It is my understanding that the Finnish troops deliberately left the supply convoys over the Lake Ladoga in peace in spite of Loofy's claims. I can't remember where I read or heard this, so treat the claim as you please.

The Finnish contribution to the Siege of Leningrad was the occasional bombing run against airfields and AA-batteries.

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#119

Post by Hanski » 02 Dec 2004, 19:08

Jari wrote: It's better to accept the fact that Finland jumped into the German bandwagon in order to advance her personal interests, not because of being enthusiastic about the role that Germany sought in Europe or because of admiring the moral qualities of Hitler. And as long as those personal interests were protected, it wouldn't matter what Hitler did on his own part.
"Jumping into a bandwagon" sounds rather adventurous and propagandistic, and in my opinion it does not correctly convey the seriousness of the situation after the Winter War that was quite well appraised by the Finnish leadership prior to the decisions leading to co-belligerency with Germany, instead of passively sitting and waiting.

Let us bear in mind the Soviets had already gained a foothold in Finland in Hanko on the Southern coast, as a bridgehead and springboard for opening another front, with a right to transit troops and material there through Southern Finnish railways (and opportunities to deploy commando units on the way, if you like), while the new border after the Moscow Peace of 1940 also allowed them to deploy offensive forces against no prepared defensive positions in the South-East, as all the fortfications of the Karelian Isthmus were now in Soviet hands. http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd.htm#treaty

After the peace of the Winter War, Molotov did not hide his aggressive attitude towards Finland in his political rhetoric, he repeatedly requested permission from Hitler to finish it off with the Finns, the Soviets shot down a Finnish civilian airliner on its flight from Tallinn to Helsinki to capture diplomatic mail that was transported in it etc. etc.

The "personal interest" was first and foremost survival as an independent state instead of sharing the fate of the Baltic countries, and staying alive is generally accepted as a justified personal interest and well worth advancing. Even with hindsight, it is hard to think of a better alternative than accepting German security guarantees, as no one else was offering them after the Winter War.

What else was going to follow, was impossible to reliably predict in 1941, but it is misleading to claim the Continuation War was primarily motivated by conquest, if that is what you mean with the bandwagon. Taking the warfare to enemy territory was the chosen strategy, which did work all the way throughout the war, and it saved the civilian population from devastating casualties if the second round with Stalin had to be fought inside Finnish frontiers instead.

User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

#120

Post by Jari » 02 Dec 2004, 19:52

Hanski wrote:
Jari wrote: It's better to accept the fact that Finland jumped into the German bandwagon in order to advance her personal interests, not because of being enthusiastic about the role that Germany sought in Europe or because of admiring the moral qualities of Hitler. And as long as those personal interests were protected, it wouldn't matter what Hitler did on his own part.
"Jumping into a bandwagon" sounds rather adventurous and propagandistic, and in my opinion it does not correctly convey the seriousness of the situation after the Winter War that was quite well appraised by the Finnish leadership prior to the decisions leading to co-belligerency with Germany, instead of passively sitting and waiting.
I meant the leap by which Finland tied her fortune to that of Germany. What it meant was that Finland gave up a fair deal of her independence and became reliant on German support. This meant that a separate peace couldn't be made with Russia when it would have been appropriate for Finns (in late 1941), but only in 1944 when confronting Germany was the lesser of the two evils.

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”