I'm agree that accident was used by SU as casus belli. As concerns the question, it implies that someone was guilty in the accident, which is in my opinion not necesarily the case.Baltas wrote: Topic and question was:Does both sides agree Finns are not quilty at Manila?
Mainila shots II soviets
Re: de
(my emphasis)Yuri wrote:Presence of supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural» among members of the government of Finland is not an obligatory condition of fulfilment of provocation on the part of Finns.
On the Finnish side wishing to make provocation was enough.
The idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural» had the supporters among officers of the Finnish army.
In October, 1939 Finland has has carried out the latent mobilization. In result the Finnish army has replenished with new supporters of this idea
Supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural» understood, that Finland cannot be indefinitely for a long time in a condition – no the war no the world. If military actions will not be started the nearest one - two month the army will be necessary for demobilizing.
They knew as, that marshal Mannerheim supported the peace agreement with Russian.
The peace decision of a territorial problem for ever buried plans of supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural».
Deficiency of time and eventual the peace agreement with Russian pushed supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural» on fulfilment of provocation.
Add to this active influence of Englishmen and the Frenchmen and a gas mixture for fulfilment of provocation in Mainila it is ready.
At the government of the USSR (if it will be necessary at Stalin) was more opportunities for maneuver, than at supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural».
In 1939 supporters of the world revolution had no any influence on a policy of the USSR as the part from them has gone in other the world, and friend a part mastered infinite open spaces of Siberia and Far North.
Soviet Union did not carry out general mobilization and has not been rigidly connected by time frameworks.
Not poorly important and that Stalin, as is known, was the supporter of the peace decision of a question at issue with Finland.
I dont know what to say about this... Maybe just that it looks like ideas from the late 19th-century, and events from 1917-1921, 1938-1939 and 1941-1944 wich is combined in a peculiar fashion, and in the end gives a hell of a mix wich I think have nothing to do with the reality in the fall of 1939... And, the by me, highlited part of the quote, where does that come from? Where can I found something more to read about it?
Best regards
Esa K
(
just edited 00 to "th" in 19th-century)
Last edited by Esa K on 27 Jun 2007, 16:09, edited 2 times in total.
-
Alex Yeliseenko
- Member
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 25 Jan 2006, 16:40
- Location: RUSSIA
I advise you to learn history of your country. And it is more to study the period 1917-1939. I feel you "float" in this theme.Anne G, wrote:This is complete nonsense which can only have believed by a paranoid person like Stalin.Alex Yeliseenko wrote: In 1920-1930-е years of Finland planned expansion on the East. And in Moscow about it should know. A policy of Finns directed on confrontation, in hope to the aid from the West, together with plans of the USSR on restoration of the international influence, also have led to " Winter war ".
And that up to Stalin you not the doctor, to speak such things. It only your emotions. Do not hurry up with emotions, please.
Hei sitten!
Re: de
Yes, if it *was* an accident. But a deliberate provocation is another matter.Art wrote:I'm agree that accident was used by SU as casus belli. As concerns the question, it implies that someone was guilty in the accident, which is in my opinion not necesarily the case.Baltas wrote: Topic and question was:Does both sides agree Finns are not quilty at Manila?
Of course one can avoid using word "guilty" and say instead f.ex. "responsible".
I have found Seppo Isotalo's theory in Swedish:
http://web.comhem.se/isotalo/svensk.htm
It is easy for me to understand why the Russians needed to believe in this staged "Finnish provocation" in 1939 to justify their attack. But I am quite amazed how the Stalinist history interpretation still appeals to Russians of 2007!
All right, merely for the sake of argument: let us for now play with the thought that someone on the Finnish side came up with the idea of wanting to fire a trench mortar at the Russians in November 1939.
Firstly, soldiers who were sent to guard the Finnish border were chosen among reliable, loyal, disciplined, mentally stable reservists and cadres -- at least known communists were probably not sent to the front line.
Did one of the soldiers 1) go crazy? 2) plan to rebel against strict orders of his commanders in violation of military discipline, i.e., deliberately commit an offense against military law and be court martialled? -- I cannot come up with any third explanation. Every sensible Finn had it crystal clear what the numerical difference in strength meant between Finland and the USSR, so claims of a Finnish attack are simply absurd. It was a matter of controlling nerves more than anything else.
Any reader of detective novels knows that for a crime to take place, there must be 1) a motive 2) the means 3) an opportunity. What on earth would have been the Finnish motive of firing the Mainila shots?
The hardware, a trench mortar and a number of shells do not fire by themselves -- it takes human effort to operate them. Now, if against all odds there was a lunatic or a drunk (even though such horseplay would never be allowed in a context like this) on the Finnish side, did he manage to fire several mortar shells all by himself, unnoticed by anyone else before, during, and after? Or, was he in command, in a position to order his subordinates to fire? Who ever believes such an order would have been blindly obeyed without questioning and demanding independent confirmation by Finnish soldiers, must be totally ignorant about the concepts of responsibility and common sense in the Finnish culture, both military and civilian.
Whoever still believes that such an order would have been carried out, and then furthermore been omitted from all unit war diaries and routine paper trail, and all eyewitnesses silenced for decades for cover-up, must be from another planet. This is a king of all conspiracy theories, how can sane people in present-day Russia seriously believe in it?
All right, merely for the sake of argument: let us for now play with the thought that someone on the Finnish side came up with the idea of wanting to fire a trench mortar at the Russians in November 1939.
Firstly, soldiers who were sent to guard the Finnish border were chosen among reliable, loyal, disciplined, mentally stable reservists and cadres -- at least known communists were probably not sent to the front line.
Did one of the soldiers 1) go crazy? 2) plan to rebel against strict orders of his commanders in violation of military discipline, i.e., deliberately commit an offense against military law and be court martialled? -- I cannot come up with any third explanation. Every sensible Finn had it crystal clear what the numerical difference in strength meant between Finland and the USSR, so claims of a Finnish attack are simply absurd. It was a matter of controlling nerves more than anything else.
Any reader of detective novels knows that for a crime to take place, there must be 1) a motive 2) the means 3) an opportunity. What on earth would have been the Finnish motive of firing the Mainila shots?
The hardware, a trench mortar and a number of shells do not fire by themselves -- it takes human effort to operate them. Now, if against all odds there was a lunatic or a drunk (even though such horseplay would never be allowed in a context like this) on the Finnish side, did he manage to fire several mortar shells all by himself, unnoticed by anyone else before, during, and after? Or, was he in command, in a position to order his subordinates to fire? Who ever believes such an order would have been blindly obeyed without questioning and demanding independent confirmation by Finnish soldiers, must be totally ignorant about the concepts of responsibility and common sense in the Finnish culture, both military and civilian.
Whoever still believes that such an order would have been carried out, and then furthermore been omitted from all unit war diaries and routine paper trail, and all eyewitnesses silenced for decades for cover-up, must be from another planet. This is a king of all conspiracy theories, how can sane people in present-day Russia seriously believe in it?
Let us assume there were such people. They weren't unintelligent, so they knew that in the fall 1939 they had no chance to success.Yuri wrote: Presence of supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural» among members of the government of Finland is not an obligatory condition of fulfilment of provocation on the part of Finns.
On the Finnish side wishing to make provocation was enough.
The idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural» had the supporters among officers of the Finnish army.
In October, 1939 Finland has has carried out the latent mobilization. In result the Finnish army has replenished with new supporters of this idea
Supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural» understood, that Finland cannot be indefinitely for a long time in a condition – no the war no the world. If military actions will not be started the nearest one - two month the army will be necessary for demobilizing.
They knew as, that marshal Mannerheim supported the peace agreement with Russian.
The peace decision of a territorial problem for ever buried plans of supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural».
Deficiency of time and eventual the peace agreement with Russian pushed supporters of idea «Great Finland from Baltic up to Ural» on fulfilment of provocation.
In the spring and summer 1941 it was totally different time.
What, a country of 170 millions would need a general mobilization to carry a war against a country of not even 4 millions?Yuri wrote: Soviet Union did not carry out general mobilization
After the war, Stalin said just the opposite. In Puna-armeija Stalinin tentissä, he said that if the USSR did not start war now, when the Germany and Western powers were engaged in the war, it had to wait for the next chance for 20 years.Yuri wrote: and has not been rigidly connected by time frameworks.
Yuri wrote: the supporter of the peace decision of a question at issue with Finland.
So was also Hitler in Munich.
-
Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
In October, 1939 (long time before incident in Mainila) the British experts have started development of the plan of attack of the USSR from different directions.Esa K wrote:(my emphasis)Yuri wrote: Add to this active influence of Englishmen and the Frenchmen and a gas mixture for fulfilment of provocation in Mainila it is ready.
I dont know what to say about this... Maybe just that it looks like ideas from the late 1900-century, and events from 1917-1921, 1938-1939 and 1941-1944 wich is combined in a peculiar fashion, and in the end gives a hell of a mix wich I think have nothing to do with the reality in the fall of 1939... And, the by me, highlited part of the quote, where does that come from? Where can I found something more to read about it?
On a plan of the Englishmen should take part in this attack Finland, Turkey and Romania. In the beginning of November, 1939 (for three week before incident in Mainila) the British ambassador in Finland Thomas Snou has suggested to involve Japan to this invention. On a plan of the British ambassador the Japanese and the Finns should meet on Ural.
Inflow the Englishmen in Helsinki have been seen by autumn of 1939 without a telescope (to the naked eye).
Even earlier, in September, 1939, the chief of northern department Foreign Office Mr. Kolle advised to the government of his Majesty to encourage resistance of Finns and to prevent the peace agreement with Russian.
Mr. Kolle spoke so: «everything, that is capable to cause difficulties at Russian in any parts of the world, only will improve our positions».
Participating in discussion on this thread, are dear a member of a forum from the Great Britain janner so strongly laughed at my former posts, that at him from laughter were «aching ribs». In particular, dear janner, assured us, that Englishmen, ostensibly, have declassified all documents on events of 1939.
It is necessary to admit, I cheerfully and for a long time laughed at his this joke.
I have imagined, as will look face dear janner when he, - having addressed in Public Records Office with the request to give documents from a green folder for October, November, 1939, - will hear in the answer:janner wrote: I live les than one mile from the Public Records Office in Kew so checking is not difficult …
«Excuse sir, we can help nothing to you, unfortunately, these documents under the decision of the government of her Majesty privacy of these documents is prolonged till 2016».
Ha-ha-ha ….
In it interestingly business did not lag behind Englishmen their allies the Frenchmen.
Dear citizens, the so-called, democratic states it is necessary for you is more critical concerns to advantages of system in which you live.
-
Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Art wrote:Well, I translated some info about the accidentJuha Tompuri wrote: I've allways thought that there were casualties.
I should have remembered it: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=30Art wrote:As the conclusion: there is no confirmation of any losses suffered on 26th November in synchronous Soviet documents, and no men killed or wounded in the result of shots were seen by Finnish observers.
Thank you so much for your post and the links in it.
Regards, Juha
-
Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
but later I hope will be all chorus. [/url]Seppo isotalo says there were no shots as the raports of the Soviet and Finnnish soldiers near the frontier don't say anything about them at the time. The raports were made many hours later, after Molotov's accusation.
Isotalo rules out the Finnish provocation, because the incident - that according to him never happened - was at first told by Molotov in Moscow. It was the SU that needed a provocation to start the war.
The Finnish government was confused: it had Molotov's accusation and own raport that there were no shots. It believed the first, as even Mannerheim knew that in like cases (f.ex. in German-Poish frontier) there had been a provocation before the war. So its answer was that there had been the shots but they had been fired from the Soviet side, though perhaps by mistake, in order not to accuse the Soviet government directly.
After that, Isotalo makes a rather dubious claim that if the Finnish government had said that there had been no shots and retreated the Finnish army 20 km, the war could have been avoided. All what he says above, shows otherwise.
However, Heikki Ylikangas, in his new book Suomen historian solmukohdat, thinks that the claim about the Mainila shots, as well the dissolving of non-aggression pact and breaking the diplomatic connections, were the last means the Soviet government tried to get Finland to accept its demands. The Finnish government, however, didn't understand this, because it assumed that if the SU was in earnest, it would make an ultimatum - and then the Finnish government would accept as it could save its face. So the Winter War was, after Ylikangas, a tragic misunderstanding on the both sides.
On the hand, Max Jakobson in Väkivallan vuodet, says an ultimatum would only have hardened the resistance of the Finnish people who couldn't believe the Soviet terms were final.
Isotalo rules out the Finnish provocation, because the incident - that according to him never happened - was at first told by Molotov in Moscow. It was the SU that needed a provocation to start the war.
The Finnish government was confused: it had Molotov's accusation and own raport that there were no shots. It believed the first, as even Mannerheim knew that in like cases (f.ex. in German-Poish frontier) there had been a provocation before the war. So its answer was that there had been the shots but they had been fired from the Soviet side, though perhaps by mistake, in order not to accuse the Soviet government directly.
After that, Isotalo makes a rather dubious claim that if the Finnish government had said that there had been no shots and retreated the Finnish army 20 km, the war could have been avoided. All what he says above, shows otherwise.
However, Heikki Ylikangas, in his new book Suomen historian solmukohdat, thinks that the claim about the Mainila shots, as well the dissolving of non-aggression pact and breaking the diplomatic connections, were the last means the Soviet government tried to get Finland to accept its demands. The Finnish government, however, didn't understand this, because it assumed that if the SU was in earnest, it would make an ultimatum - and then the Finnish government would accept as it could save its face. So the Winter War was, after Ylikangas, a tragic misunderstanding on the both sides.
On the hand, Max Jakobson in Väkivallan vuodet, says an ultimatum would only have hardened the resistance of the Finnish people who couldn't believe the Soviet terms were final.
Well, he used all material in Foreign Office and Central Committee archives that was available in 1993-4. As he had been a diplomat and KGB man in Finland over 15 years, he had much more understanding how international matters are in practice dealt than average historian.Alex Yeliseenko wrote: Victor Vladimirov is not the expert under the soviet-finnish attitudes 1930-1940- years.
The same applies to Max Jakobson, who was a journalist before being recruited by the Finnish Foreign Office. Nobody has claimed that he can't be an expert because he has no university decree of any sort but honoris causa. On the contrary, his classic work Diplomaattien talvisota was unoffically translated to Russian and used to train future Soviet diplomats.
BTV, Seppo Isotalo isn't a historian either, but a docent in Social Policy. He has, however, also researched Soviet archives, f.ex. helped the Swedes to find to information about Raoul Wallenberg.