Hidden origins of the Winter War

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002 07:06
Location: Finland

Post by Tero » 24 Aug 2004 12:21

John T wrote:
Tero wrote:By John T
Yes, I wrote it a bit unclear.
I edited my original post, to make it clearer.

I was talking about German deliveries to Sweden as compensation for aircrafts sent to Finland.
Your position is still unclear: were they or were they not compensation for the planes Sweden alledgedly supplied Finns with ?
This is from my first, edited post:
John T wrote: I believe that the only German aircrafts that actually was ordered by Sweden during the Winter war and delivered within the time frame was a handfull of Fi-156 "Storch" liason aircrafts.
I think that some He-114 maritime patrolaircrafts where also ordered during the winter war but the delivery to Sweden where delayed until Soviet submarines attacked German shipping in Swedish territorial waters.

A possible combat Aircraft(Fighters or Stukas) deal with Sweden was something that the Germans used as a carrot in negotiations for most of the war, but never materialsied into a firm contract.
Cheers
/John T.
I take it then you do not think there is a hidden connection.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 24 Aug 2004 17:49

Aleksei22 wrote:As a rule Mannerheim prefered to keep silance in the memoirs about such "ticklish" Details of cooperation with Germany ( in 1939 and 1918 too ).
You have to know and understand that Mannerheim was never very pro-German oriented person. He was a former aristocratic Russian Army General who didn't rate German Nazis very high (partly because he supported monarchy). In 1918 Mannerheim opposed Germans arrival to Finland but politics didn't ask his permission.

Have you ever thought that perhaps that co-operation you assume never existed in the extent you suggest?
Aleksei22 wrote:Nevertheless it is possible to find very specified "traces" and "hints" spreaded "between lines" of his Memoirs.
Of course it is possible to find these details, but another question is are these "findings" correct or just speculation without any real proves? It was already proved that the Russian translations of Mannerheim's memoirs is perhaps not the best possible. We are still waiting for the hard facts, not hidden suggestions.
Aleksei22 wrote:The direct references to the specified cooperation Finland-Germany you can find in the Meltjuhov's book and some references herein -
I see, that kind of sources. And Mannerheim's memoirs "red between the lines" support facts shown in these books?

Anyway we are still waiting for the hard facts.
Aleksei22 wrote:Well known Double standard practice is - habitual deal in business (in particular in sphere of trade of arms)
and ( especially ) in sphere of policy. Germany was not exception of this universal rule neither in 1939 nor in 1917-1919 . It is during 1917-1919 that Germany armed Finland with the Rusian trophy weapon.
Known by who?

Majority of our weapons were war booty from Russian troops in Finland and the Reds. Germany did deliver small batches of arms to Finland but more was bought from France in 1919. So, actually Russia and Soviet- Russia armed Finnish Army in 1918 (and USSR also later in 1939 - 1940 and 1941 - 1944).

Later most arm deliveries were arranged through private companies. But these and their activities before and during the war are very well known today and I think there is nothing "hidden" left behind them.

In the 1930's there was much more co-operation between Finland and the Baltic States and Poland than with Germany.
Aleksei22 wrote:As to deliveries of arms to Finland in 1939 ( via Sweden) - it was in origin (presumably) Czechoslovak's.
Proves, please. I think you mix German deliveries to Finland after the Winter War between autumn 1940 and summer 1941 and earlier deliveries. These deliveries contained items from France, Poland and Czechoslovakia (and perhaps also Belgium and Holland too) in addition to German stuff.
Aleksei22 wrote:You should know that in 1937-1938 wery good relation established between Intelligence of USSR and Czechoslovakia.
But not after Germans' partial occupation in 1938?

-----

The question is still, what most of this has to do with the hidden origins of Winter War?

Aleksei22
Banned
Posts: 252
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 20:49
Location: Russia

Post by Aleksei22 » 24 Aug 2004 20:40

Hello, All

Some usefull remarks.

______________________

. wrote:
Software translated

The Finnish government has disagreed on such offer.
In the middle of November ( 13 nov 1939- added by me ) delegation with empty hands has come back in Helsinki.
If the government has laid down for itself the aim - to reject all ( Russian - added by me ) proposals, - that meant WAR, - it was time to address this problem to League of Nations. I do not know, whether this question was discussed - .....

Mannerheim's Memoirs page 249
______________________


.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 24 Aug 2004 22:00

Tero wrote:By John T
I disagree with your conclusion.
Reread Hanskis exelent quote at
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54304
It contains some interesting highlights of German domestic politics (Göring Vs Ribbentrop). And if you read about German- Finnish relations between summer 1940 and up to the continuation war you'll find Mr. Veltjens in action once again as Görings messenger.
And how does that relate to the topic at hand ? Which, if you need reminding, is hidden origins of the Winter War. What would have happened if there was no Winter War is speculation.
The domestic German conflict regarding Fiat aircrafts transited to Finland was real. This situation did exist during december 1939 and is one of the
factors to be counted when reasoning why Germany did act in a ambigous way towards Sweden during the winter war.

You can read Talvisodan Historia IV, p. 250 ff, esp. 260 and 266.
( Side referenced courtesy of Juha Tompuri, I have tried to translate part of it myself but I failed miserably)
Tero wrote: By John T
So to you, if Finland is not written into the agreement, Finland had nothing to do with it?
That's about the size of it. You have not proven a paper trail which would indicate the weapons acquisitions made by Sweden when war was being waged at her doorstep were covert weapons aid to Finland by Germany.

Mainly because it was simple arming of the Swedish army to gear up in case she would wind up in a shooting match, not because it was a covert German domino game to help out Finland.
Indeed I have not proved a paper trail,
Lets start with
The Appeal that was never made (The Allies, Scandinavia and the Finnish Winter War 1939-1940)/ Jukka Nevakivi, Hurst&Co. London 1976.
Page 84.

You can then have a lookat
Schwedens Wirtschatfsbeziehungen zum Dritten Reich 1933-1945
by Klaus Wittmann
Page 288-

and then the most detailed account in
Upprustning och Verkstadsindustri i Sverige under det andra världskriget.
by Ulf Olssons 1973.

Then if German deliveries where only used to gear up Swedens own defense why did Sweden at all send any weapons to Finland?
And note that Swedes, Finns and Germans had different motivations behind these deals.

Tero wrote: The idea as such is feasible. Only there is no evidence to support that theory. So far we have had the British (with the French), the Eternal Jew and the international capitalists doing their work against USSR. Now you wish to add Germany to that esteemed list. If what is being fantasized here would have been remotely true Finland would have had all the artillery ammunition and all the arms she would have required.
Are facts unknown to you by definition fantasy?

And I can't follow your reasoning, If what I say is true Finland would have drowned in ammo?
Please do not mix up different writers opinion.
Tero wrote: The sad truth is nobody would part, even for good money, with state of the art arms before Winter War and after Winter War the best and most reliable source for modern gear for the Finnish army was the Red Army and nobody else.
It is not a sad truth, it is a lie.
Read Talvisodan Historia iV page 325.

Sweden,(with help of Great Britain and the Netherlands), Hungary and Germany did all sent state of the art AA-guns to Finland between September 1939 and January 1940.

Cheers
/John T.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 24 Aug 2004 23:03

Tero,
your point of view are mostly supported by arrogance and smileys rather than facts but I try to answer as good natured as I can.
Tero wrote:By John T
you got it wrong regarding aircrafts but it is correct with respect to other munitions.
Only if it can be proven the Swedish expressly co-operated with the Germans in an understanding that any and all munitions given (sold ?) to the Finns would be compensated by the Germans. And that the Finns were aware of this connection or had expressly agreed with the Germans directly about such arrangements (not that it would have propably mattered much at the time, but still).
Why all and why must the Finns have expressly agreed to it?
I do not understands why you needs such stringent criterias to make it a deal.
Tero wrote:By John T
Regarding Aircrafts USA where the place where Sweden placed most orders during the winter war, not Germany.
Were these planes a compensation for the planes sent to Finland ? ;)
The fact that 1/3 of the Swedish fighters where operating in Finland and Sweden still was neutral simplified US export permits and was also helpfull when getting priority from US manufacturers.

Tero wrote:By John T
With few exceptions, all modern guns delivered directly from Swedish armed forces to Finland where replaced by Germany.
Replaced by or replaced from ? Big difference.
Please explain the big difference, Free currency was not of a problem for Sweden, compensation in precious metals where more bothersome.
But I still don't follow your reasoning.

Tero wrote:By John T
The 12 105mm K/34 guns where brand new and replaced with German 105mm guns, as where 37mm and 40mm guns too.
Paulaharjus Field Artillery of the Republic of Finland 1918-1995 states 12 105K34 were bought from Sweden, 4 of which made it to Finland during Winter War, the full complement shows in the roster as of June 6th 1940.
Four made it to the front, the other eight where under organization in Turku(?) when the war ended.

Tero wrote:By John T
A special note on the 40'ies are that a large number where property of Great Britain completed at Bofors but forbidden by Swedish neutrality laws to be sent to GB.
GB did accept that Sweden requisitioned the guns IF they where sent to Finland. I am not yet completely clear if the Dutch did the same, but I have reasons to belive so.
GB could of course not stop the Swedes from doing whatever they thought appropriate with the guns but the compromise to send them to Finland spared Sweden negative goodwill during wartrade agreements.
Which models and makes does this refer to and when were these sent (sold ?) to Finland ?
40mm Bofors guns, tehy differed in Firecontrol and other minor details.
The British and Dutch guns where fairly easy to sort out.
The Austrian Böhler with Goertz firecontroll used by SFK also stuck out.
The awkward ones are the Hungarians since Both Sweden and Finland had orders in Hungary prior to the war and I have not bothered to try to trace the different orders over time.
Since we have Two manufacturers, two countries and two services per country it is less trivial to find the facts in details.

Tero wrote:By John T
BTW - Finnish sources insist naming the 8 75mm fieldguns m/40A to be Argentinian, actually four where intended for Argentina and the other four where requisitioned from Thailand. Identical in configuration when delivered from Bofors, so no difference seen when sent to Finland.
So ? What we designated them is our own business. :)

Paulaharju does state all 8 were of a batch of 12 bound for Argentina which after ellaborate negotiations allowed 8 of them to be sold to Finland.
Well, Swedish "beredskapsverket" at the Military archives list them as for Thai and 4 Argentinan. One reason the negotiations where elaborate is the fact that 4 countries and one company was part of the negotiations.
The Argentinan order where for 224 guns in total.

Tero wrote:By John T
And since Finland then sent a fair amount of guns back to Sweden after the winter war, you can say that Sweden made some profit on guns, at least for the time period September 1939 - July 1940.
Which guns are you referring to ? The ones which the Swedish volunteers operated ?

And don't forget the captured Red Army gear sent your way... ;)
Both used by SFK and SA.

The Red Army gear, what was sent to Sweden more than an amphibious tank?, Wasn't the three Armoured cars sent later?
Tero wrote:By John T
Ammunition was another matter, since AFAIK almost nothing was returned
If it was bought and paid for there was no reason to send it back.
Not paid by cash, borrowed money.
So it was one way to manage the trade balance.

Source:
Hjalmar Krogius. Handelspolitik i krigstid.Finlands och Sveriges ekonomiska och handelspolitiska relationer åren 1940-1945,
Esbo:Kulturfonden för Sverige och Finland, 1992

Tero wrote:By John T
and the German delivered few rounds per gun for the replacements.
It is the Swedes own fault if they bought stuff but no ammo for it. :)
Finland had no experience of Germany attaching political strings to arms?

Cheers
/John T.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: 1% of introductary step to FULL TRANSPARENCY

Post by John T » 24 Aug 2004 23:22

Aleksei22,
To get this back to topic, your second post, at page one of this thread:
Aleksei22 wrote:
I am 100% sure you know that so called "Winter War" ( 1939-1940 ) would never outbreaked without a "little help" of the broad "outsiders-group ", represented by well known ( and unknown too ) figurants - politics and bankers from Sweeden, Germany, France, UK and USA.


by the way, dear Neutral-Bob, - USA's participants comprised only minor part of this international "big-gang-party" ( industrial+finance business-INTERNATIONAL ). They had "green-age" but powerful status ( especially in finance) in this brigade of "shadow-outbreakers" of so called "Winter War" ....

Hope you agree with me that KEY factor for "Winter-War" - were MONEY
and WEST-POLICY-MAKERS, whom figurants had the ability to
convert EVERYTHING ( even human blood ) into MONEY.
Aleksei22,
I do not know how much you knows about the state of Finlands armed forces when the Molotov ribbentrop pact where signed?

It is true that Finland did axcelerated rearming but it was staring from a really low level.
Soviet fears that Germany could invade Finland without the finns could defend their territory was exagerated but not totaly off the mark.

Could you explain to me why USSR did not try to improve the state of readiness in the Finnish armed forces?

With a common heritage USSR could have supplied Finland with updated coastal artillery, modern AA and AT-guns and other defensive military equipment.
By creating trust USSR could have provided her self with a very able buffer, Especially if Sweden and FInland where allowed into an defensive pact.

I can't follow your reasonong that money started the Winter war, could you please elaborate that ?


Cheers
/John T.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 24 Aug 2004 23:31

John T wrote:
The 12 105mm K/34 guns where brand new and replaced with German 105mm guns, as where 37mm and 40mm guns too.
Tero wrote:Paulaharjus Field Artillery of the Republic of Finland 1918-1995 states 12 105K34 were bought from Sweden, 4 of which made it to Finland during Winter War, the full complement shows in the roster as of June 6th 1940.
Four made it to the front, the other eight where under organization in Turku(?) when the war ended.
These eight guns belonged to a new Heavy Artillery Battalion 7 under training at Vaasa. Since 5.3.1940 it was led by Swedish volunteer Maj. K. Hansen.

Its 1st Battery / Heavy Artillery Battalion 7 was led officially by Swedish Lt. S. Rahmqvist but in practice Finnish Lt. E. Sandbacka.

1st Battery was originally called as 1st Separate Motorized Heavy Cannon Battery but had only one gun. Unit was formed in late December 1939 and operated near Viipuri. Battery was equipped with four guns on 6.1.1940 and re-named in January 1940. Battery had four barrel damages between 13.2. - 2.3.1940 due to wrong powder.

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002 07:06
Location: Finland

Post by Tero » 25 Aug 2004 12:09

By John T
The domestic German conflict regarding Fiat aircrafts transited to Finland was real. This situation did exist during december 1939 and is one of the factors to be counted when reasoning why Germany did act in a ambigous way towards Sweden during the winter war.
True. But you have yet to establish the facts to support the claim the German-Swedish arms deals were in fact covert arms support for Finland.
You can read Talvisodan Historia IV, p. 250 ff, esp. 260 and 266.
( Side referenced courtesy of Juha Tompuri, I have tried to translate part of it myself but I failed miserably)
I'll take a look.
Indeed I have not proved a paper trail,
Lets start with
The Appeal that was never made (The Allies, Scandinavia and the Finnish Winter War 1939-1940)/ Jukka Nevakivi, Hurst&Co. London 1976.
Page 84.

You can then have a lookat
Schwedens Wirtschatfsbeziehungen zum Dritten Reich 1933-1945
by Klaus Wittmann
Page 288-

and then the most detailed account in
Upprustning och Verkstadsindustri i Sverige under det andra världskriget.
by Ulf Olssons 1973.
Since you have the pages down why not post a synopsis of them as well ? It would be a valuable contribution to this debate.
Then if German deliveries where only used to gear up Swedens own defense why did Sweden at all send any weapons to Finland?
Why did Britain, France, Italy etc send any weapons to Finland ?

Just to remind you: the aid received was for the most part outdated or obsolecent gear the senders were happy to send off to clear room for new acquisitions. And in most cases the gear was sold because there was a domestic pressure to help poor Finland under attack. The Swedish did provide the most help. But they were also the closest and it was easier for them to give (sell) it.
And note that Swedes, Finns and Germans had different motivations behind these deals.
What part did the Finns play in the deals ?
Are facts unknown to you by definition fantasy?
Nope. So far the hidden origins of Winter War have stayed hidden.
And I can't follow your reasoning, If what I say is true Finland would have drowned in ammo?
The reasoning is so far Finland got bank rolled and supported by world wide covert operations. If this was true then why did the Finnish army have to go to war in such a poor state of affairs when it comes to hardware ?
Please do not mix up different writers opinion.
Nothing personal, sorry. I'm not mixing them. Just building up on them. So far Aleksei has provided the British, the Eternal Jew and the capitalists. You add in (in effect) Germany.

Pre-Winter War Sweden gave Finland the cold shoulder when the conflict escalated. Sweden was looking mostly after its own interests. The Swedish-German relations in 1939-40 are important but only to the Swedes. How do they play in the Winter War and the hidden origins of it ?
It is not a sad truth, it is a lie.
Read Talvisodan Historia iV page 325.

Sweden,(with help of Great Britain and the Netherlands), Hungary and Germany did all sent state of the art AA-guns to Finland between September 1939 and January 1940.
True. But light caliber AA guns were of little help. That help was state of the art but it was too little and in the wrong place. When the Finnish buyers tried to get some serious stuff they drew blank.

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002 07:06
Location: Finland

Post by Tero » 25 Aug 2004 12:25

By John T
your point of view are mostly supported by arrogance and smileys rather than facts but I try to answer as good natured as I can.
Get off your high horse. So far you have not presented any data that would have exhonorated the Swedes from charges of collaborating more closely with the Germans than Finland did.
Why all and why must the Finns have expressly agreed to it?
I do not understands why you needs such stringent criterias to make it a deal.
Not the deal, dear friend. The interpretation of it you are making demands these stringent criteria. You say A-B-C and the data supports so far only A-B and B-C
The fact that 1/3 of the Swedish fighters where operating in Finland and Sweden still was neutral simplified US export permits and was also helpfull when getting priority from US manufacturers.
So they were direct compensation for planes sent to Finland ?
Please explain the big difference, Free currency was not of a problem for Sweden, compensation in precious metals where more bothersome.
But I still don't follow your reasoning.
If it was replaced BY the Germans the Germans actively offered to replace them. If they were replaced FROM Germany the deals were bilateral and there was no direct connection between Winter War and the negotiations.
Four made it to the front, the other eight where under organization in Turku(?) when the war ended.
Propably. But that what is the point of all THIS pickering ? :)

40mm Bofors guns, tehy differed in Firecontrol and other minor details.
The British and Dutch guns where fairly easy to sort out.
The Austrian Böhler with Goertz firecontroll used by SFK also stuck out.
The awkward ones are the Hungarians since Both Sweden and Finland had orders in Hungary prior to the war and I have not bothered to try to trace the different orders over time.
Since we have Two manufacturers, two countries and two services per country it is less trivial to find the facts in details.
So this is in effect beside the point at hand, right ? :)
Well, Swedish "beredskapsverket" at the Military archives list them as for Thai and 4 Argentinan. One reason the negotiations where elaborate is the fact that 4 countries and one company was part of the negotiations.
The Argentinan order where for 224 guns in total.
And the significance of this to this debate is what, exactly ?

The Finns called the Argentinian but what does it matter ? :)
Both used by SFK and SA.

The Red Army gear, what was sent to Sweden more than an amphibious tank?, Wasn't the three Armoured cars sent later?
AFAIK. So we have established Swedes sold the Finns stuff, some was donated and later returned and Finns send some war booty to Sweden.
Not paid by cash, borrowed money.
So it was one way to manage the trade balance.
So in effect it was inconsequential to this debate.
Finland had no experience of Germany attaching political strings to arms?
Between 1939 and 1940 the only pressure was to make a treaty with USSR which would have allowed Soviet troops access to and bases in Finland.

User avatar
Earldor
Member
Posts: 351
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 00:35
Location: Finland

Re: 1% of introductary step to FULL TRANSPARENCY

Post by Earldor » 25 Aug 2004 13:41

John T wrote:
Soviet fears that Germany could invade Finland without the finns could defend their territory was exagerated but not totaly off the mark.
It wasn't a very plausible fear at all. The fears for the safety of Leningrad were Soviet rationalizations barely based in reality, meant to sooth the minds of the communists and Soviet sympathisers abroad, and make the move more palatable diplomatically. The concern was basically based on an event 20 years earlier, but the world was a different place altogether.

You may, of course, use the insanity clause: Stalin was paranoid. He was, but you can conveniently explain everything with that.

Some questions for you to consider:
  • Why would the Germans want to give Finland into the Soviet sphere of influence, if they were planning on attacking Leningrad using Finnish soil as a staging ground?

    How would the Germans get their troops to Finland?

    Is there any proof to point to the fact that the Finns would have willingly submitted to a German invasion?

    Even if there was, don't you think that the Russians would have sunk German fleet at sea?

    Did the Germans have the capability to transport any troops in significant quantities to the Finnish harbors or beaches?

    Wouldn't it be easier logistically and diplomatically for the Germans to do what they did in reality, attack through Poland?

    Why would Finland want to get entangled in a war with the SU? Consider the balance of power and population, not to mention land area.
I guess, your best bet is to show that there was a conspiracy of some kind, but so far neither you nor Aleksei22 have succeeded in bringing in anything even remotly credible.

Aleksei22
Banned
Posts: 252
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 20:49
Location: Russia

Post by Aleksei22 » 25 Aug 2004 18:12

Hello, John


John T wrote:Aleksei22,
To get this back to topic, your second post, at page one of this thread:
Aleksei22 wrote:
I am 100% sure you know that so called "Winter War" ( 1939-1940 ) would never outbreaked without a "little help" of the broad "outsiders-group ", represented by well known ( and unknown too ) figurants - politics and bankers from Sweeden, Germany, France, UK and USA.


by the way, dear Neutral-Bob, - USA's participants comprised only minor part of this international "big-gang-party" ( industrial+finance business-INTERNATIONAL ). They had "green-age" but powerful status ( especially in finance) in this brigade of "shadow-outbreakers" of so called "Winter War" ....

Hope you agree with me that KEY factor for "Winter-War" - were MONEY
and WEST-POLICY-MAKERS, whom figurants had the ability to
convert EVERYTHING ( even human blood ) into MONEY.
Aleksei22,
I do not know how much you knows about the state of Finlands armed forces when the Molotov ribbentrop pact where signed?

It is true that Finland did axcelerated rearming but it was staring from a really low level.
Soviet fears that Germany could invade Finland without the finns could defend their territory was exagerated but not totaly off the mark.

Could you explain to me why USSR did not try to improve the state of readiness in the Finnish armed forces?
With a common heritage USSR could have supplied Finland with updated coastal artillery, modern AA and AT-guns and other defensive military equipment.
By creating trust USSR could have provided her self with a very able buffer, Especially if Sweden and FInland where allowed into an defensive pact.
John, afaik, within the all rounds of official and "secret" negotiations inisiated by USSR since 1933+ ( Hitler in power ) favorable TRADE-enhacement deal ( mil. included ) with Finns offered (Most favoured status) besides proposal of "land-swapping" to secure Leningrad.

But all of them were rejected with "no-disscussion-mode" stage.

As i can estimate - the main reasons for that "total ignorrance" - was PRO-WEST orientation of fiinn's dovernor class. As a rule ( since 1918 ) it was basically swedes in origin ( as Mannerheim too ). You can find a lot of sign of this in mannerheim's memoirs and in others.


" Within the first 20 years of independence was considered, that the USSR - main, if not unique threat of Finland " (R.Hejskanen - the general-major of Finland). " Any enemy of Russia should always be the friend of Finland ; Finnish people... is the friend of Germany for ever. " (the First president of Finland - P.Svinhuvud)


You need to add a "slightly-dissolved" Mannerheim's hate to Russia ( may be inherited or assembled during ww1 and pre-war period in Russian army). I cannot explain the real nature of Mannerheim' s "ati-ru" paranoja
without such features as conflictness, self-overestimation and even Napoleon's complex.


See for example own Mannerheim words. One chapter of his memoirs make a clear "sound" - "The End of our hopes". ( see below ) What "hopes" he was speaking about ???? - It was his RUSSIA DESINTEGRATION "hopes" - with a little help of Entente in 1918-1920.

So to say - main political IMPERATIVe of Finns gov.class was clear, transparen and Obvious - anti-Russian ( in faivor of Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, USA ...... doesnt matter else at all !!!! )


John T wrote: I can't follow your reasonong that money started the Winter war, could you please elaborate that ?


Cheers
/John T.

Since 1933 when Hitler got a power in Germany and espessially after march 1933 ( World Jewry War declaration agains Germany ) huge finance "drain" to USA and GB took place ( pls. remember that first strong budget has been made by Routchild's family as strong financial "officer" for ALL sides involved in European wars, even Napoleon's wars). Remember Jacob Shiff+Japan alliance during Russo-Japanese War in 1905 for ex.

War business - is extreemly profitable. And best wishes of all this "war-trader" - were to pit all side in europe ( Germany, USSR in first ) to make a good sum of "cash". Note, pls how profitable money-source was WW1 for USA, for ex.

So the answer - is simple & transparent.

Thank you.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 25 Aug 2004 19:56

Aleksei22 wrote:
See for example own Mannerheim words. One chapter of his memoirs make a clear "sound" - "The End of our hopes". ( see below ) What "hopes" he was speaking about ???? - It was his RUSSIA DESINTEGRATION "hopes" - with a little help of Entente in 1918-1920.

For G... sake - Mannerheim didn't hate Russia. We could argue was he thinking himself before 1917 more as an Russian or Finnish... Atleast he did serve Russia faithfully.

Privately he did hate the Bolshevik Government, and what they did to "his" country.
Aleksei22 wrote: So to say - main political IMPERATIVe of Finns gov.class was clear, transparen and Obvious - anti-Russian ( in faivor of Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, USA ...... doesnt matter else at all !!!! )
Very interesting.

Could you provide information about Norway as an natural enemy of Russia/USSR ??

Did their fish canning factories force Russian entrepreneurs on same business to bankruptcy, or what ?? :lol:


Mark V

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 25 Aug 2004 20:14

Aleksei22 wrote:..., afaik, within the all rounds of official and "secret" negotiations inisiated by USSR since 1933+ ( Hitler in power ) favorable TRADE-enhacement deal ( mil. included ) with Finns offered (Most favoured status) besides proposal of "land-swapping" to secure Leningrad.
But all of them were rejected with "no-disscussion-mode" stage.
No wonder...
Aleksei22 wrote:As i can estimate - the main reasons for that "total ignorrance" - was PRO-WEST orientation of fiinn's dovernor class. As a rule ( since 1918 ) it was basically swedes in origin ( as Mannerheim too ). You can find a lot of sign of this in mannerheim's memoirs and in others.
That explains everything. But can you prove anything?
Aleksei22 wrote:
" Within the first 20 years of independence was considered, that the USSR - main, if not unique threat of Finland " (R.Hejskanen - the general-major of Finland). " Any enemy of Russia should always be the friend of Finland ; Finnish people... is the friend of Germany for ever. " (the First president of Finland - P.Svinhuvud)
From where these quotes are from. Mannerheim's memoirs? If so I think they are taken away from the context (like the quote from Churchill's memoirs).
Aleksei22 wrote:You need to add a "slightly-dissolved" Mannerheim's hate to Russia ( may be inherited or assembled during ww1 and pre-war period in Russian army). I cannot explain the real nature of Mannerheim' s "ati-ru" paranoja without such features as conflictness, self-overestimation and even Napoleon's complex.
So, Mannerheim was mentally sick?

And that was the reason for Winter War? Have you thought what kind of men led USSR at that stage? Maybe researching their doings and sayings would be more revealing?
Aleksei22 wrote:See for example own Mannerheim words. One chapter of his memoirs make a clear "sound" - "The End of our hopes". ( see below ) What "hopes" he was speaking about ???? - It was his RUSSIA DESINTEGRATION "hopes" - with a little help of Entente in 1918-1920.
Have you ever thought that Mannerheim didn't like Communists and Socialism a lot? Maybe this has something to do with his words?

I have red Mannerheim's memoirs and I have not found any bad word on Russia or Russians. For example Lt.Gen. W. Tuompo's published diaries prove that well. Tuompo was the Chief of Command Department of Finnish Supreme HQ, one of Mannerheim's closest men. Tuompo for example tells how Mannerheim sometimes told about his career in Russia.
Aleksei22 wrote:So to say - main political IMPERATIVe of Finns gov.class was clear, transparen and Obvious - anti-Russian ( in faivor of Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, USA ...... doesnt matter else at all !!!! )
And that is why Finland attacked in 1939?
Aleksei22 wrote:Since 1933 when Hitler got a power in Germany and espessially after march 1933 ( World Jewry War declaration agains Germany ) huge finance "drain" to USA and GB took place ( pls. remember that first strong budget has been made by Routchild's family as strong financial "officer" for ALL sides involved in European wars, even Napoleon's wars). Remember Jacob Shiff+Japan alliance during Russo-Japanese War in 1905 for ex.
War business - is extreemly profitable. And best wishes of all this "war-trader" - were to pit all side in europe ( Germany, USSR in first ) to make a good sum of "cash". Note, pls how profitable money-source was WW1 for USA, for ex.
And what all this has to do with Finland and Winter War?
Aleksei22 wrote:So the answer - is simple & transparent.
...err.. what answer?

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 25 Aug 2004 22:09

Tero wrote:By John T
your point of view are mostly supported by arrogance and smileys rather than facts but I try to answer as good natured as I can.
Get off your high horse. So far you have not presented any data that would have exhonorated the Swedes from charges of collaborating more closely with the Germans than Finland did.
Aha, thats the sore point.
I do not understand why I have to prove that your accusations are wrong,
I am brought up in a society where the Prosecutor has to prove his point.

I stated that Germany benefited by the continuation war,
Jari described what he (and I) thought was beneficial to Germany.

John Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:23 pm wrote:
Tero wrote:
Do not make every finn a Nazi but it did help the Nazi cause.
The same did many of Swedens actions during ww2.
How did it help the Nazi cause, exactly ? IMO Swedish contribution to the Nazi cause was of more significant consequence. Finland needed Germany more than Germany needed Finland. Yet the Finnish leadership was able to retain its distance to the Nazi leadership and, more importantly, the freedom to manouvre politically was retained.
Jari helped to explain what benefits Germany recieved by having a common enemy with Finland.

I do not know how to compare the German benefits from Swedish trade and Finlands suffering 1941-44.

Rethorical question:
If Swedish trade with Germany was so important for Germany, relative the contination war, how do you compare Swedish support to Finland during the winter war, was it more important than the Finnish army?

In such case we got the hidden origin of the winter war.


I am afraid we have to keep searching for the hidden origin...

Cheers
/John T.

Sweden's commercial trade with Germany where to the mutual benefit for both nations.
Swedish Iron ore and ball bearings where the most desirable products for Germany.

Finland's commercial trade with Germany, where less in volume but did also include some precious metals, copper, nickel and if I remembers correctly molybdenum, highly desired by Germany.

That Sweden's commercial trade with Germany was of greater significance to Germany than Finland's leaves no doubt.


Out of respect of the dead and wounded soldiers I refuses to compare the scales, casualties with commercial benefit.

I ask you to value the military consequences for USSR that Finland and Germany had a common enemy and explain to me in what way Sweden did further Nazi Germany more than Finland did?


Cheers
/John T.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 25 Aug 2004 22:35

Aleksei22 wrote:Hello, John
John T wrote:
Aleksei22,
I do not know how much you knows about the state of Finlands armed forces when the Molotov ribbentrop pact where signed?

It is true that Finland did axcelerated rearming but it was staring from a really low level.
Soviet fears that Germany could invade Finland without the finns could defend their territory was exagerated but not totaly off the mark.

Could you explain to me why USSR did not try to improve the state of readiness in the Finnish armed forces?
With a common heritage USSR could have supplied Finland with updated coastal artillery, modern AA and AT-guns and other defensive military equipment.
By creating trust USSR could have provided her self with a very able buffer, Especially if Sweden and FInland where allowed into an defensive pact.
John, afaik, within the all rounds of official and "secret" negotiations inisiated by USSR since 1933+ ( Hitler in power ) favorable TRADE-enhacement deal ( mil. included ) with Finns offered (Most favoured status) besides proposal of "land-swapping" to secure Leningrad.

But all of them were rejected with "no-disscussion-mode" stage.
Don't you forget the nonagression pact of 1932 and 1934 ?

Bear with me that I am no expert on Finnish history,
forum members, please advice if I gets things wrong. (as I had to ask for this :) )

Aleksei22 wrote:

As i can estimate - the main reasons for that "total ignorrance" - was PRO-WEST orientation of fiinn's dovernor class. As a rule ( since 1918 ) it was basically swedes in origin ( as Mannerheim too ). You can find a lot of sign of this in mannerheim's memoirs and in others.


" Within the first 20 years of independence was considered, that the USSR - main, if not unique threat of Finland " (R.Hejskanen - the general-major of Finland). " Any enemy of Russia should always be the friend of Finland ; Finnish people... is the friend of Germany for ever. " (the First president of Finland - P.Svinhuvud)


You need to add a "slightly-dissolved" Mannerheim's hate to Russia ( may be inherited or assembled during ww1 and pre-war period in Russian army). I cannot explain the real nature of Mannerheim' s "ati-ru" paranoja
without such features as conflictness, self-overestimation and even Napoleon's complex.
Your description does not fit very well in my perception of Mannerheim,

It is consdered a fact that Mannerheim opposed war and tried to convince Finnish cabinet of some consessions.
Aleksei22 wrote:
See for example own Mannerheim words. One chapter of his memoirs make a clear "sound" - "The End of our hopes". ( see below ) What "hopes" he was speaking about ???? - It was his RUSSIA DESINTEGRATION "hopes" - with a little help of Entente in 1918-1920.

So to say - main political IMPERATIVe of Finns gov.class was clear, transparen and Obvious - anti-Russian ( in faivor of Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, USA ...... doesnt matter else at all !!!! )
It can't be that simple as the Finns just wanted to be alone in their wood?

You might noticed the reactions when a Swede starts to even have an opinion, on the writing of Finnish history.

I can't see a reason why Finns would have willingly made their country a battle field for foreign powers.
Aleksei22 wrote:
John T wrote: I can't follow your reasonong that money started the Winter war, could you please elaborate that ?
Cheers
/John T.

Since 1933 when Hitler got a power in Germany and espessially after march 1933 ( World Jewry War declaration agains Germany ) huge finance "drain" to USA and GB took place ( pls. remember that first strong budget has been made by Routchild's family as strong financial "officer" for ALL sides involved in European wars, even Napoleon's wars). Remember Jacob Shiff+Japan alliance during Russo-Japanese War in 1905 for ex.

War business - is extreemly profitable. And best wishes of all this "war-trader" - were to pit all side in europe ( Germany, USSR in first ) to make a good sum of "cash". Note, pls how profitable money-source was WW1 for USA, for ex.

So the answer - is simple & transparent.

Thank you.
No it is not transparent.

First of all your claim that Jews drained Germany of currency does not fit my perception.
The constant tradewars and protectionism in the western world in the thirties did severe damage to the financial structure of all countries. German Companies, as all other companies tried to evade the protectionism by different means.
One book on the subject is by Gerard Aalders and Cees Wiebes
"The art of cloaking ownership : the secret collaboration and
protection of the German war industry by the neutrals : the case of Sweden"

Please elaborate on how the extremly profitable War business started teh winter war.

Cheers
/John T.

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”