Most important ally of Germany on the Eastern Front?

[Mark V]

Hmm, I've met couple of times an ex-LRRP-man who has lived in Norway IIRC since the 40's (he's a relative of a friend of mine), never thought his immigration might have been caused by something like that, but who knows? Unfortunately I only heard about his wartime duties (including a recon trip around lake Ladoga) long after meeting him - hope I still have a chance to meet him again some day and hear those unique first-hand accounts...

I guess it is possible. If i would have moved out of Finland in 40s to other Nordic country - why an earth Norway ?? (sorry - Erik and others -read on...) - why not to Sweden, which was at time much more wealthier and above all neutral. Actually it would be marvelous if it would be the case - especially if you can squeeze out of him some first-hand experiences - unofficially...

Well, propably not such good luck. He was propably a fisherman in Finland and wanted saltwater near him in his future homeland...


Mark V

BTW. Nice pics.

[Harri]

NATO used volunteer Finnish patrolmen because they were seldom caught in USSR unlike the others. It is although known that a few Finns were killed during these top secret missions. Most of these were organized by the Norwegians but Finns were also re-trained (:roll:) in USA. Hundreds of Finnish intelligence experts worked for NATO, USA or Sweden after WW II.

Mark V and Ike:

I have to loan myself. What I wrote explains why so many Finns were/lived in Norway after the war. At least some of the books of Esa Anttala (alias S.Sgt Urpo Lempiäinen) are about these recon missions and are worth reading. Norway was one of the keypoints of NATO during the cold war.

[Ike_FI]

Thanks for the book tip, Harri! Your comments (applies to MarkV as well) really made me curious now.

Btw, to get back to the hardware, "we" had some submarine industry as well...

[Harri]

Btw, to get back to the hardware, "we" had some submarine industry as well...

Yes, I forgot that too. For those who don't know Finnish submarines were the prototypes/testbeds for later German submarine types II and VII. The question is (for non-Finns only): By which name the company that built Finnish submarines in the late 1929's/early 1930's is known today and what are its main products?

I suggest this very interesting book about co-operation between Finns and Germans:
Forsén, Björn and Forsén, Annette:
Saksan ja Suomen salainen sukellusveneyhteistyö
(Secret Submarine Co-operation between Germany and Finland)
Publisher WSOY, 1999

I don't know if it has been published in other languages like Swedish and German, but it is possible.

[Hanski]

The whole question is misplaced, as Finland was not an "ally" of Germany at all, but fought a war of her own with objectives of her own.

Did Finland attain her objectives of war?

Regarding the re-annexation of territories lost in the Winter War, initially yes, but in the long term, no - she lost the Petsamo territory in addition to the previously lost Karelia and Salla territories, and had to accept other heavy peace terms as well.

Regarding maintaining her independence, yes - which was the most important objective, and which was endangered both in the Winter War 1939-40 and the Continuation War 1941-1944. Stalin's aim had been conquering Finland, and he had not given it up in the Interim Peace which he made when concerned about the prospect of a possible intervention by Britain and France.

Besides London and Moscow, Helsinki remained the only capital city of a WWII participant country in Europe which was never occupied by foreign troops.

Rumania was less fortunate regarding the outcome of the WWII.

[Eduard Chivu]

I voted for Romania. 60% of Germany's needed oil came from Rumania. I"m sure that without this oil the Germans would of done a lot worse on the Eastern front. While it wouldn't of been as worse if the Finns would of stayed home. Romania also had to supply it's larger army thousands of kilometers, compared to several hundred the Finnish had to do. I'm not trying to say that the Rumanian army was better than the Finnish one, or vise versa. I'm just saying the Rumanian contribution was much greater.
eduard

[Harri]

60% of Germany's needed oil came from Rumania. I"m sure that without this oil the Germans would of done a lot worse on the Eastern front. While it wouldn't of been as worse if the Finns would of stayed home.

Like I said earlier nickel ore from Finland was equally important. 75 - 80 % of German nickel came from Finland (also other ores were supplied including copper). This is not a very good point to argue but without Finnish nickel Germany would have produced less panzers and needed less (Rumanian) oil...

Romania also had to supply it's larger army thousands of kilometers, compared to several hundred the Finnish had to do.

Was Rumanian Army actually any larger than Finnish Army? I think they were rather equal in size and compared to population Finnish Army was bigger. And who actually supplied Rumanian Army?

[Eduard Chivu]

harri wrote

And who actually supplied Rumanian Army?

It wasn't the Germans, I'll tell you that much?
harri wrote

Like I said earlier nickel ore from Finland was equally important. 75 - 80 % of German nickel came from Finland (also other ores were supplied including copper). This is not a very good point to argue but without Finnish nickel Germany would have produced less panzers and needed less (Rumanian) oil...

What percentage of the materials used on a tank are nickel or copper? I thought tanks were made out of steel mainly?What about ships and planes, are those made of nickel and copper too? All i'm saying is that oil was more important because it powered everything. I don't know if the finns had a bigger army for their population, but that's not the point. The point is who achieved more and who contributed more. You can have an army of 10 million but if you don't achieve anything it's useless.
eduard

[Harri]

What percentage of the materials used on a tank are nickel or copper? I thought tanks were made out of steel mainly?

Steel is an alloy of several metals and carbon. The percentage of nickel is only 2 to 5 percent but both chrome and nickel are necessary metals for producing armour steel. The more nickel the harder steel you'll get. Without nickel you will not get proper steel, its a vital metal.

What about ships and planes, are those made of nickel and copper too?

Chrome-Nickel Armour Steel was used in building ships. Nickel and copper were also used in ammunition and the latter one in pipes and electric wires which were used in vehicles, ships and aircraft. Planes were mainly made of light (aluminium) alloys.

All i'm saying is that oil was more important because it powered everything.

All I'm saying nickel was more important in making steel which was used in making more arms and ammunition. Stalemate.

Germans' problem was that they couldn't put lead into their oil to encrease the octane level which meant they had to spend enormous amounts of oil producing only a little amount of high octane fuel. Some have said that German method needed even ten times more oil than the method Allied Forces used. This was the primary reason for German "oil chrises".

I don't know if the finns had a bigger army for their population, but that's not the point. The point is who achieved more and who contributed more. You can have an army of 10 million but if you don't achieve anything it's useless.

No-one has so far said Finnish Army didn't achieve anything. Finnish Army for example saved our independence twice. Finland was either never conquored and remained a western democracy unlike Rumania.

Using your logic if the army of the bigger country achieves the same then the army of the smaller country was better, right?

[Eduard Chivu]

Harri wrote

All I'm saying nickel was more important in making steel which was used in making more arms and ammunition. Stalemate.

I'm not sure about this, but i though that most of germany's raw materials came from norway.

Harri wrote

No-one has so far said Finnish Army didn't achieve anything. Finnish Army for example saved our independence twice. Finland was either never conquored and remained a western democracy unlike Rumania.

I never said Finland never achieved anything. I know that both Rumania and Finland achieved a lot. I was trying to say that it doesn't matter who has the biggest army. It matters what each one achieved. Finland might of stayed a democracy for several reasons. First of all it was in a different sphere of influence, and second of all Finland did not have as many Russian divisions fighting against them. Most of Army Group South(or the Ukrainian front, i don't know what the russians called it) was coming towards Romania. IN the battle of Targul Frumos 300 russian tanks were destroyed and 200 were damaged, while the Germans lost 10. I don't think Finland was ever threatened by that many tanks as Romania was. And last but not least, Rumania was being bombared by the Allies, while Finland was not. I forgot, Finland also had the advantage of terrain.

But it is useless to keep on arguing, I'll just say that both Finland and Rumania helped equally. Like you said, without Finland's metals there would be no need for oil. So one depends on the other, and vise versa.
good day
eduard

[Harri]

I'm not sure about this, but i though that most of germany's raw materials came from norway.

No, iron ore came from Sweden. Probably also Norway supplied raw materials to Germany but I don't know any details; at least "heavy water" for making A-bombs!

I was trying to say that it doesn't matter who has the biggest army. It matters what each one achieved.

Right. Finnish Army was both big and achieved very good results.

Finland might of stayed a democracy for several reasons. First of all it was in a different sphere of influence, and second of all Finland did not have as many Russian divisions fighting against them. Most of Army Group South(or the Ukrainian front, i don't know what the russians called it) was coming towards Romania.

IN the battle of Targul Frumos 300 russian tanks were destroyed and 200 were damaged, while the Germans lost 10. I don't think Finland was ever threatened by that many tanks as Romania was. And last but not least, Rumania was being bombared by the Allies, while Finland was not. I forgot, Finland also had the advantage of terrain.

Well, Soviet attack against Finland in June 1944 was one of their major attacks on the eastern front. Alone in Karelian Isthmus Leningrad Front had about 270.000 men, 1660 field guns, 100 super heavy or heavy railway and coastal guns, 660 tanks and assault guns and 1500 aircraft (initially 24 infantry divisions, two artillery divisions, field artillery brigade, five armoured brigades, eight armoured regiments, eight assault gun regiments and assault engineer brigade). Fortunately we had Armoured Division, five Finnish infantry divisions and two brigades in Karelian Isthmus.

Soviet attacks against two Finnish infantry divisions (IV Army Corps: 10.D and 2.D) started on 9.6.1944. Finnish divisions were under heavy artillery barrages of about 100 artillery battalions of which 60 to 70 fired same area at Valkeasaari. On 10.6.1944 during the two hours period over 100 Soviet field artillery and mortar battalions shot about 280.000 shells. Soviets broke Finnish defences on 10.6. at Valkeasaari. It has been said that this was one of biggest artillery concentrations during WW II.

That was maybe a bit bigger battle than you (and many others) seem to think... :roll:

But it is useless to keep on arguing, I'll just say that both Finland and Rumania helped equally. Like you said, without Finland's metals there would be no need for oil. So one depends on the other, and vise versa.

I agree. 8)

[Eduard Chivu]

Harri wrote

I agree.

There, now we have it all settled.

Harri wrote

That was maybe a bit bigger battle than you (and many others) seem to think...

I never said that Finland fought only minor battles, I know very well Finland fought in some major battles.

But now we've settled it that both countries helped equally.

[Juha Tompuri]

IN the battle of Targul Frumos 300 russian tanks were destroyed and 200 were damaged, while the Germans lost 10. I don't think Finland was ever threatened by that many tanks as Romania was.
good day
eduard

Ever...

At the begining of Winter War USSR had (about) 23622 tanks at service.
They entered the war against Finland with 2514 tanks
Finnish troops eliminated 2268 (of which 288 captured) tanks (in 105 days)
Out of action due mechanical problems 1275 tanks
At the end of the war 2998 tanks at service at Finnish front

TOTAL: 6541 tanks against Finland.

Regards, Juha

[Eduard Chivu]

Juha wrote

Ever...

When I wrote ever I meant that Finland was never threatened by as many tank divisions as romania was in that battle. Plus you have to remember that in the late years of the war the technological differences between soviet armor and axis minor armor was gigantic. neither rumania nor finland ever had enough tanks to deal with the russians. In the beggining of the war it was a little bit more different though. Rumanian and Finnish light tanks were somewhat comparable to Russian tanks, although not fully.
eduard

[Maresal-06]

Juha Tompuri said :

Ever...

At the begining of Winter War USSR had (about) 23622 tanks at service.
They entered the war against Finland with 2514 tanks
Finnish troops eliminated 2268 (of which 288 captured) tanks (in 105 days)
Out of action due mechanical problems 1275 tanks
At the end of the war 2998 tanks at service at Finnish front

TOTAL: 6541 tanks against Finland.

Hi you there! I see that our discussion remains very interesting! I remained neutral from the beginning but now I want to intervene a little bit.

I have no doubt that Finland destroyed 2268 and captured 288 Soviet tanks during the Winter War. But I want to remind you that these tanks couldn't be compared with what was threatening both Romania and Finland in 1944. T-34/85 and IS's cannot be compared with T-26s, T-28s or T-35s. Even when facing huge KVs, you could destroy them with the help of aviation. In addition to all this, you have the winter and a bad terrain for mass attacks with tanks. All this combined produced a Soviet graveyard.

This is my opinion.

Best regards,

M-06