What side where the Finns?

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 06 Aug 2004 12:06

Whose side were the finns ?

A skiing competition during the war..explains the topic a little bit.

Image

JT

Sami_K
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 10 Apr 2002 07:46
Location: Finland

Post by Sami_K » 06 Aug 2004 12:11

Topspeed wrote: So Sami is the drifting tree theory of president Kekkonen officially denied now ?
Can't say its "officially" denied (AFAIK), but Jokipii's work indicates that the theory as it was written by Arvi Korhonen (if memory serves) is too simplistic (if one can put it that way).

Give Jokipii's book a read (although its damn big book :) ).

Cheers,
Sami

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 06 Aug 2004 12:20

Ok Sami K,

Here is another historical pic. The gebirgsjäger general Dietl with finnish general Hjalmar Siilasvuo who later in the fall of 1944 started the hostilities known as " Lapin Sota ". Dietl died in an aeroplane crash and later new commander Rendulic is responsible of the burning of Lapplands capitol Rovaniemi.
General Siilasvuo in the Winter War destroyed a complete division ( battallion ? ) of Soviets RKKA who tried to reach city of Oulu. Oulu is also the city where the invasion to Tornio started ( the first maneuvre in Lapland's War ).
Finnish generals wear a white fur hat that has a blue cross on top ( inside though )..if memory serves me correct.

Image

Zygmunt
Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: 31 May 2002 19:50
Location: Wielka Brytania

Post by Zygmunt » 06 Aug 2004 14:03

Sami_K wrote:The Bristol Blenheim I (Bristol Type 142M) entered RAF service in 1937 as a twin-engined high-performance "medium" ( :roll: ) bomber. I'm not sure that during her development, she was considered as a 'mere' Blenheim.
How it was viewed during development wasn't in question here. But in 1940 (with the Luftwaffe air threat looming) Fighter command was what most of us were concerned with, as you say:
...the RAF then after deliberating came up with the Blenheims as "not crucial" for the RAF).
You included two urls; The first one -
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/100o2.JPG - shows that trials with 100 octane fuel had taken place some time before - 1937/38. Thanks for the link, but this shows trials use in three squadrons - not operational use by the entire RAF.
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me with the second one -
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h90.html - is the history of one of the squadrons involved in the trials, which used Blenheims from 1937, until it replaced them with B-17s in 1941... so showing that the Blenheims were replaced as soon as possible? Or did you include it to show that the squadron conducting trials with 100-octane fuel was operating Blenheims?

Zygmunt

Sami_K
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 10 Apr 2002 07:46
Location: Finland

Post by Sami_K » 06 Aug 2004 20:59

Zygmunt wrote:How it was viewed during development wasn't in question here. But in 1940 (with the Luftwaffe air threat looming) Fighter command was what most of us were concerned with...
Indeed, but when the decision was made to send Finland planes (December 1939 if memory serves), France had not fallen, and neither was Norway. The Luftwaffe threat at that point wasn't as great as in, say 6 months later.
Zygmunt wrote: You included two urls; The first one -
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/100o2.JPG - shows that trials with 100 octane fuel had taken place some time before - 1937/38. Thanks for the link, but this shows trials use in three squadrons - not operational use by the entire RAF.
Well, it shows it was in test use in those squadrons. As long as we don't know what the document is, we can't draw any other conclusions than "it was in use in (at least) those squadrons". And as eg. the early versions of the Spitfire (AFAIK) wasn't using 100-octane fuel, it of course wasn't in operational use in the entire RAF.
Zygmunt wrote:I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me with the second one -
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h90.html - is the history of one of the squadrons involved in the trials, which used Blenheims from 1937, until it replaced them with B-17s in 1941... so showing that the Blenheims were replaced as soon as possible? Or did you include it to show that the squadron conducting trials with 100-octane fuel was operating Blenheims?
Well, the latter was what I was after, but the first one applies as well. :)


Cheers,
Sami

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 05 Sep 2004 13:43

Victor wrote: The fact that the Soviet Union did not want Romania to be recognized as an Allied nation (like Italy was for example, even though Romania comitted more forces than Italy, Brasil, Mexico etc, etc). That would have made it impossible for them to collect the war debt from Romania.
Why is that ?

rgrds,

Juke

User avatar
Uninen
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2004 19:26
Location: Festung Europa, Finnland

Post by Uninen » 05 Sep 2004 17:33

Topspeed wrote: General Siilasvuo in the Winter War destroyed a complete division ( battallion ? ) of Soviets RKKA who tried to reach city of Oulu.
Actually it was at "Raatteen tie" when Finns mauled 44. (and 163.) soviet division(s).. out come of the batlle in KIA:s was 23000 Soviets and 800 Finns..

http://www.lukio.palkane.fi/raate/raate.html

So it was DIVISION(S) not a "battalion".. :)

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”