Do the Finnish Army and Army of Norway count as part of Operation Barbarossa?

[Art]

There is an unconfirmed version (mostly on Soviet maps) that they supposedly pushed to the river Svir, but even if this was true

Here is a non-Soviet map:

and an account of military operations:
https://archive.org/stream/PAM20-271#page/n211/mode/2up
By the end of 1941 practically the entire Finnish ground forces were positioned beyond the border of 1939, some a hundred km or more beyond it, which was a major step by any rate.

[antwony]

There is an unconfirmed version (mostly on Soviet maps) that they supposedly pushed to the river Svir, but even if this was true, it does not seem that there were any other major attempts.

Your map even has the caption: areas ceded. It's not a map of where the Finnish Army advanced to.

The Finnish Army did not just advance all the way to Syväri river, they made bridgeheads over it. They occupied the whole eastern bank of Lake Ääninen and the afore mentioned 3 Corps took part in a German offensive up near the Arctic Circle, the objective of which was the White Sea and Murmansk railway.

The concept of Greater Finland was an important part of why Finns talk of a seperate war. Well Greater Finland and the fact Finland was also involved in the Winter and Lapland Wars.

The majority of Finns were very much opposed to Lenin's (and his successor's) interpretation of Marx and the government decided to go to war to help destroy the Soviet Union. In that regard there was very little difference between the war fought by the Republic of Finland and Nazi Germany in 1941-1944.

But, Finland's war aim B (or maybe war aim A depending on your point of view) was to liberate Finnish speaking people living in various areas of the Soviet Union and incorporate those areas and peoples into Finland. Nazi Germany's plans for the east were very, very, very different.

[Stiltzkin]

By the end of 1941 practically the entire Finnish ground forces were positioned beyond the border of 1939, some a hundred km or more beyond it, which was a major step by any rate.

Where is the major offensive? Did Finnish troops plan on encircling Moscow? 100s of kms? These aren't even 50, they barely operated outside of their borders (something I cannot say about the RKKA), nor were there any plans for annecting this territory. Let me be more precise here: Soviet Forces committed to the Continuation war on average: 300,000-400,000 vs committed to fighing the Nazi German forces 6,1-6,5 Million.

It occurs to me that things are as follows: Russia is trying to whitewash Soviet guilt and repaint Finland with a "fascistic" tint. One should not forget why Finland was in this situation in the first place. Likewise, the Soviets illegally annected Bukovina, Bessarabia, the Baltic states: Lithuania , Estonia, 15% of Finnish soil and divided Poland in the Molotov-Ribbentrop/Hitler-Stalin pact (not to mention Katyn).
This almost resembles the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. For me the picture is clear: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were horrible, tyrannical systems waging a massive, total war, while also dragging other minor nations into the conflict. For Finland it was a question about survival.

[Art]

Where is the major offensive?

I suggest to read Ziemke or other popular accounts before asking.

[Stiltzkin]

I suggest to read Ziemke or other popular accounts before asking.

I am familiar with Ziemke and also with this,

Wrzesien2.jpg (20.71 KiB) Viewed 1069 times

369px-EasternBloc_BorderChange38-48.svg.png (125.78 KiB) Viewed 1069 times

but I am sure Russian literature has a good explanation for all this, something in the sense of "liberation" or "military aid".

[antwony]

Where is the major offensive?

More Finnish soldiers were killed in 1941 than any other year of the war.

nor were there any plans for annecting this territory.

Yes there was. There were areas which the Finnish Army never occupied that could have been included in a Greater Finland. Advancing to, and (largely) stopping at, Teri river, Syväri river and Lake Ääninen was what the army wanted to do, but there were influential activists interested in additional areas.

Agree with you about the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia's historical revisionism. Well, not so much revisionism rather continuing the stupidity and lies. But that's not really relevant to this thread.

I suggest to read Ziemke or other popular accounts before asking.

Think we've discussed Ziemke before. There' s a thread here on him somewhere and it would be fair to say I'm not a fan.

But if Slitzkin, or anyone else, is under the impression Finland was some kind of fluffy cute bunny in WW2 reading Ziemke, or whoever, is probably a good idea.

[Art]

More Finnish soldiers were killed in 1941 than any other year of the war.

Yep, relatively to the seize of forces deployed Finnish casualties in 1941 were on the same scale as German. And about 1/3 larger than losses in the Winter War. It was a big deal for them.
It should be remembered that Finnish population was about 1/20 of the Greater Reich and Finnish ground forces - less than 1/10. One cannot realistically demand from them anything like taking Moscow and nobody did actually. Barbarossa planners expected them to stage an offensive north of Leningrad to tie down Soviet forces there and to assist in cutting the Murmansk railroad and blocking sea communications in Baltic and those expectations were mostly met.

[Juha Tompuri]

Strengths for Axis allies at the beginning of the Operation: Romanian 340,000, Finland 250,000, Italy 60,000 , Hungary 44,000 , Slovakian approx. 45,000, dwarfed by the replacements from Belorussia or Ukraine alone.

In the begining of the war Finnish strenght was something around 350 000, raising in about a month to ca. 475 000. IIRC.

By the end of 1941 practically the entire Finnish ground forces were positioned beyond the border of 1939, some a hundred km or more beyond it, which was a major step by any rate.

Where is the major offensive? Did Finnish troops plan on encircling Moscow? 100s of kms? These aren't even 50, they barely operated outside of their borders

From the start of the war Finnish max advance was something around 300km. (Ca. 1/3 of the total distance to Moscow)

More Finnish soldiers were killed in 1941 than any other year of the war.

Yep, relatively to the seize of forces deployed Finnish casualties in 1941 were on the same scale as German. And about 1/3 larger than losses in the Winter War. It was a big deal for them.

AFAIK the known number of killed was about the same.

Regards, Juha

[Stiltzkin]

In the begining of the war Finnish strenght was something around 350 000, raising in about a month to ca. 475 000. IIRC.

Can you post a document or quote, that would be helpful, I have limited information on Finnish (committed) strengths.

From the start of the war Finnish max advance was something around 300km

300 from the old borders or the "new" ones.

But if Slitzkin, or anyone else, is under the impression Finland was some kind of fluffy cute bunny in WW2 reading Ziemke, or whoever, is probably a good idea.

Nobody is saying that, but titling them as "fascists" or aggressors is fundamentally wrong, the Soviet Union was the ultimate aggressor, people should be aware of this. The methods the Soviets used against Finland are the same Russia is utilizing today against Georgia and Chechenya, the pattern is no different. One should always remember that Russia still occupies Finnish soil up to this day.

[michael mills]

But, Finland's war aim B (or maybe war aim A depending on your point of view) was to liberate Finnish speaking people living in various areas of the Soviet Union and incorporate those areas and peoples into Finland. Nazi Germany's plans for the east were very, very, very different.

Hitler proposed to give the Leningrad area to Finland after its expected capture (except for the port area which was to become a German naval base).

That was because St Petersburg had been built on the site of a Swedish fortress called Nyenschantz. The Finnish name was Nevanlinna.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyenschantz

The area was Swedish Ingria, named after the native inhabitants, the Ingrians, a people related to the Finns. Nyenschantz was captured by Peter the Great in 1703.

[antwony]

In the begining of the war Finnish strenght was something around 350 000, raising in about a month to ca. 475 000. IIRC.

Do you know anything about farming? That's not really my thing. Understand that in 1941 (or maybe a bit later???) the Finnish Army reached its maximum size. But, many of the soldiers were sent home. Coincidentally, or not, Finland's harvest was poor in 1941. Poor to the extent that it was a serious problem for Finland's war strategy.

This actually has some relevance for this topic, if Finland's going to be included, as the size of Finland's army was considered unsustainable and the numbers are a bit misleading that way.

AFAIK the known number of killed was about the same.

Regards, Juha

Yes, you're correct. Remember that I'd read somewhere that 1941 had been the worst year, casualty wise, for the Finnish Army. But, I'd read that a long time ago so I checked from Kansallisarkisto http://kronos.narc.fi/menehtyneet/ before posting here. Their numbers were;

1939: 5644, 1940: 20923, 1941: 26887, 1942: 9693, 1943: 6195 1944: 22697, 1945: 981

Maybe I've interpreted their database incorrectly. But, it seemed pretty clear. Although, as you said, about the same.

Hitler proposed to give the Leningrad area to Finland after its expected capture (except for the port area which was to become a German naval base).

Inkerinmaa was one of the areas I was alluding to when I mentioned areas the Finnish Army never occupied that could have included in a Greater Finland. But, I think discussion of that is, pretty much, a hypothetical discussion about hypothetical situation.

It's not really relevant, or that worthwhile, and I've enough experience of internet message boards to know that it will bring some RUSSIA STRONK trolls and degenerate into stupidity straight away. HITLER + LENINGRAD + GREATER FINLAND is a different topic to this.

the Soviet Union was the ultimate aggressor, people should be aware of this.

Pretty sure everyone's aware of this, including Russian internet warriors.

The methods the Soviets used against Finland are the same Russia is utilizing today against Georgia and Chechenya, the pattern is no different.

You can compare the Russian's methods, but its quite a different situation as Georgia and the Chechens are d***heads and Russia's PR job pretty easy.

We're getting miles off topic.

[Art]

Nobody is saying that, but titling them as "fascists" or aggressors is fundamentally wrong

Well, show me any place in the topic where Finns were titled "fascists". Right now we have two fundamentally wrong statements here: Finnish Army didn't stage any major offensive in 1941 and Finnish Army didn't go beyond the border of 1939 and both came from you.

[Art]

In the begining of the war Finnish strenght was something around 350 000, raising in about a month to ca. 475 000. IIRC.

[Stiltzkin]

Well, show me any place in the topic where Finns were titled "fascists". Right now we have two fundamentally wrong statements here: Finnish Army didn't stage any major offensive in 1941 and Finnish Army didn't go beyond the border of 1939 and both came from you.

Your statement "read Ziemke" does exactly imply the picture of blaming the Finns and presenting them as "imperialistic aggressors".
With the original Soviet cassus belli being the shelling of their own village and further argumentation, let me cite:"The Finnish border was to close to Leningrad".
Conversations on the net usually revolve around this topic and it has been brought to my attention, hence I am trying to inform people that this is a major misconception.
It is the attempt to whitewash Soviet imperialism, major campaigns of disinformation do exist.

The Finns did not participate in major offensives, I cannot see how Skirmishes or putting pressure on the enemy can be described as "major offensives" (they did not even possess the manpower to do it), I just have to look at Viipuri. In military studies, you need the involvement of whole Army groups in order to classify it as a major offensive, with a specific goal, being the destruction of the enemy. Furthermore, they were never utilized in the German war industry or any major German formations, a sign of incoherent, diplomatic aims.
Another fact still stands: Russia is still occupying Finnish territory up to this day.

I would also like to know where these "massive" Axis Allies auxilia troops were, everyone keeps talking about on this forum. The notion of "the innocent, unprepared Soviet Union was attacked by the massive alliance of Axis forces in 41" is strong in the AHF community. If one compares Romanian and German KIA up to the moment the Romanians switched sides, the Germans suffered approx. 1 million in contrast to 70,000 Romanian KIA.

[Art]

Your statement "read Ziemke" does exactly imply the picture of blaming the Finns and presenting them as "imperialistic aggressors".

If you want to know what imply just ask me. In reality I imply that you should read Ziemke or other popular accounts to know what were major offensives of the Finnish Army in 1941.

The Finns did not participate in major offensives

No, they put their entire ground forces to the offensive and participated in some pretty fierce battles especially in July-August 1941. If you don't trust me you can listen to the Finnish members, who say essentially the same.

In military studies, you need the involvement of whole Army groups in order to classify it as a major offensive, with a specific goal, being the destruction of the enemy

So El-Alamein or operation "Torch" were not major offensives. Both involved smaller forces than Finnish Army possessed btw.

they did not even possess the manpower to do it

So Finns did the maximum effort that can be expected from the army of their size. Ok, that's my point exactly.

Another fact still stands: Russia is still occupying Finnish territory up to this day.

Nope, no government since 1945 including Finnish or your own believes that Russia occupies some
Finnish territories. Neither the Finnish government advances official claims to any Russian territory.