Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

[Tero]

By Slon-76

I do not understand this argument. Finland unless had for this purpose any opportunities?

You distinquish between siege and blockade. You say Finland blockaded Leningrad from 1941-44. I simply ask if Finland was blockading Leningrad before 1939 by having frontier guard troops at the old border.

You believe, what the Finnish army passed through the fighting orders transports with meal for Leningrad?

The Finnish troops never interfered with the Red Army supply effort across Lake Ladoga.

[Juha Tompuri]

A Off-topic post by bf109 emil moved to a more proper section:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=156347

/Juha

[Slon-76]

By Slon-76

I do not understand this argument. Finland unless had for this purpose any opportunities?

You distinquish between siege and blockade. You say Finland blockaded Leningrad from 1941-44. I simply ask if Finland was blockading Leningrad before 1939 by having frontier guard troops at the old border.

You consider, what the situation in 1941-44 differed nothing from a situation at 19-39?

You believe, what the Finnish army passed through the fighting orders transports with meal for Leningrad?

The Finnish troops never interfered with the Red Army supply effort across Lake Ladoga.

I.e. if Stalin has decided to supply Leningrad through Finland, Finns would not began to interfere? I think, would began. It also refers to "to block".
Simply Germans did it actively, Finns - is passive. It does not change sense of an event.

[Tero]

By Slon-76

You consider, what the situation in 1941-44 differed nothing from a situation at 19-39?

As far as the frontier in the Isthmus goes there was no essential difference between the two periods apart from the exchange of possession of the land twice.

I.e. if Stalin has decided to supply Leningrad through Finland, Finns would not began to interfere? I think, would began. It also refers to "to block".

Stalin did decide to take land from the Finns to safeguard the city. Had there been no Winter War who knows how the events would have unfolded.

Simply Germans did it actively, Finns - is passive. It does not change sense of an event.

How can you say Finns blockaded the city during the war but not during peace ? From the logical POV the Germans attacking from the South is irrelevant.

[bf109 emil]

I don't want to be a wet blanket here, but I think a lot of posts here have become not whether the Continuation war was avoidable, but more along the lines of how the Battle or War progressed.i.e. whether the troops around Leningrad where part of the siege or camped by Lake Lagoda allowing free passage to the Soviets with no aims at blocking them, or fighting or aiding the Germans, etc. has gone past whether the war was avoidable to the military decisions now placed or battles taking place in the Continuation War...just my Point of View

I was hoping more for discussion on Political/Military/Democratic discussions which led up and whether the war was actually avoidable or could be through politics/diplomatic missions/declarations, etc. but i will not trample on the discussions or postings here, but at times I find it hard to jump from troops around Leningrad back to who/what/when decisions where made and mobilizing of Finland or agreements, rights of passage given,political awareness etc. which had to transpire way before discussing whether/if Finland fought Russians close to or at Leningrad

Thank You for hearing me

Jim Snowden
aka bf109 emil

[Slon-76]

By bf109 emil

Yes, you are absolutely right.
As "trample" around of Leningrad became completely senseless. My interlocutors as it seems to me, do not want to see obvious. I, probably, cannot understand reasons of my interlocutors. Conversation has definitely gone to impasse. It is necessary to come back to the beginning, i.e. to lifted in the name of a theme to questions.