Juha Tompuri wrote:Hi,
John T wrote:As I understands, A Finland who shared the destiny of Sweden would have been seen as the best possible outcome.
As a hindsight, maybe yes
But..as you earlier wrote:
John T wrote:- the decision makers perceptions at the time
The decision makers at that time didn't have all the info we now have.
Yes and this is important, do you discuss if it was possible to act diffrently or not?
The Finnish inner circle must have grappeled with the pro and cons of yet another war and it was in that context I expressed myself quite crude:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote:At least for those ~50k killed during contiunation war?
...at least quite tactless written.
My Apology, my intention was to point to the risk and costs of taking part in another war. Not to insult the fallen and their relatives.
Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote:And I have not seen anything that proves that Germany prefered Finland Neutral while Soviet union did not, do you have any sources especially regarding the timeperiod spring-summer 1941?
This then (as Patrik wrote) might be revealing reading:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... 12,%201940
Well, it is not new to me but I interpret the meaning in another way than Patrik.
So USSR chooses not to attack Finland for eight months (thats one way to accept status quo) and then asks Germany if they would mind if they had another go at Finland.
Germany answered the question with
Germany recognized that, politically, Finland was of primary interest to Russia and was in her zone of influence. However, Germany had to consider the following two points:
1. For the duration of the war she was very greatly interested in the deliveries of nickel and lumber from Finland, and
2. She did not desire any new conflict in the Baltic Sea which would further curtail her freedom of movement in one of the few merchant shipping regions which still remained to her.
Thats a German no.
And as Stalin feared a German attack I see further Soviet pressure on Finland as means to deny Germany favours from Finland.
USSR did not need the Nickel, they just did not wanted it to be used by the Germans.
And at this point in time there is a possibility that the Finns could have choosen to act like Sweden. Sell ore to Germany in exchange for being left alone.
Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote:In General I am fond of the idea that people can influence their situation so for pure philosofical reasons I can't accept the drift wood theory
Juha earlier wrote:I personally don't see the "driftwood theory" as that bad.
1940-1941 a lot of things "just happened" around Finland, and we drifted from a situation to another.
With very little chances to affect to the events by ourselves.
Sometimes the choices were few, as Professor Huldt here (in Swedish) writes
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/kultur/did_14211842.asp
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &highlight
Regards, Juha
I must say that I finds Professor Huldt's contrafactial description how Germany would invade south eastern Finland and cause a Finnish civil war as pretty close to what ThomasG calls "fantastic what-ifs"
Professor Meinander seems much more on the spot with a much simpler explanation, Finland wanted to restore her borders.
Karelia was lost due to unfavourable correlation of forces (RM-Pact) and now early 1941 the correlation of forces swung against USSR.
Would not Ryti consider it his moral duty to restore the old borders?
To me the cause of action that Finland took during the first six month of 1941 is easy understand but that is not the issue with this debate.
And I find a lot of the arguments why it was inevitable to be inconsistent and produced for the warcrime trials.
Actually my only problem to make a alternative history is the Petsamo area, all other arguments I have heard so far can be avoided.
Cheers
/John T