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 » 25 Aug 2004 22:45

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.
No sore point there. I only wish to deny you the high ground of moral indignation.
I stated that Germany benefited by the continuation war,
Jari described what he (and I) thought was beneficial to Germany.
I never denied that. But I stated it is my opinion Finland gained more from Continuation War than Germany. And what Germany benefitted from it was not much apart from a steady supply of critical minerals. They suffered several prestige defeats in the North themselves plus they had one (more) unreliable cobelligerent to worry about which eroded their political prestige as the war wore on.
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.
Drawing your attention to the bolded guestion. I may have misunderstood it previously or I misrepresented my POV. To recap: IMO the Swedish trade with Germany between 1941 and 1945 was of greater value to Germany (relatively speaking) than the Swedish help was to Finland during Winter War. I do not wish to down play the Swedish help. But when talking in relative terms the support Sweden gave was too little too late in the sense that any and all political support needed before the war was denied and when the shit did hit the fan the Sweded made sure their arse was not too far in the sling vis-a-vis USSR and her political agenda.
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.
Agreed.
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?
Geographically the area was easily defendable. The amount of troops tied down by the Finnish war effort was not a big strain to the Red Army, especially since the Finnish war goals did not threaten the Murmansk rail link and Leningrad directly. The German war effort in the North was more of a strain to the German resources than it was for the Red Army resources.

Politically the common enemy routine did not play against USSR too much since the British and the Commonweath could be pressured to deglare war on Finland thus putting the political pressure on the Finnish political leadership thus forcing the tip of the wedge between any further warming up of the Finnish-German relationship. (Stalin must have been one hell of a poker player :)).

Why I think Swedens input did more to help the Nazi cause than the Finnish input: the Swedish input directly contributed to the prolongment of the war. Without the Swedish trade the German war industry would have starved. Finland IMO was more of a strain to the German resources. Not too detrimentaly I guess but in the overall picture Finland was a factor among others when the German war effort was saturated.

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

Post by Aleksei22 » 26 Aug 2004 12:45

Hello, John
John T wrote:
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 :) )

John, nonagression pact of 1932 was signed and ratified ( after a bit ajustments). It was initiated by USSR in 1927 and it's primary "tasks" - was to seaze a tensinon between USSR and Finland and find apropriate settlement to friquent local boderline conflicts.

I am sure you know that during 1925-1938 years USSR had a lot of boderline conflicts with Norway too.

So, pact of 1932 was good and adequate antill USSR-German cooperation ( civil trade + mil. ) was OPEN, TRANSPARENT and PREDICTABLE ( after well known Rapallo's treaty ). I am sure you know that Both Sides were satisfied ( USSR+Germany+Scandinavia ) not only within civil relations and TRADE but in military area too

( Remember about Gudarians, Luftwaffe - USSR
testing of future "Stuka's" bombing technology - in Scandinavia ).

After Hitler abadonned Versalli treaty - things chanched cardinally.


Pls. remember "komik's-like" anti-arms-racing Conferrence Leaque of Nations - " La conferrence de la limitation de la reduction des armements" ...

So to say treaty of 1932 ( which was prolongated up to 1944 ) - MUST be REARRENGED .... by means of bilateral NEGOTIATIONS between USSR and Finland. That it was done by USSR, you are known with Finnish "constructive" reactions.




John T wrote: 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.
John, his ( Mannerheim ) anticommunism was well known. It is a "medical-fact". In reality - his revelation to Russia at all wasnt a bit different ( remember 1918-1920 ).

John wrote:


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

Cheers
/John T.
to be cont. a bit later/

Thank you.

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

Post by Topspeed » 26 Aug 2004 13:07

Aleksei22 wrote:
I am sure you know that during 1925-1938 years USSR had a lot of boderline conflicts with Norway too.
Hahhaha !

There wasn't even a border between USSR and Norway in 1925-1938. Let us hear more about these conflicts.
Aleksei22 wrote: John, his ( Mannerheim ) anticommunism was well known. It is a "medical-fact".
Is that so; a "medical-fact". I want to know about the medics who said so. He was anti-bolsevik. He also did not highly value national-socialists.

regards,

Juke T

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

Post by Aleksei22 » 26 Aug 2004 13:33

Topspeed wrote:
Aleksei22 wrote:
I am sure you know that during 1925-1938 years USSR had a lot of boderline conflicts with Norway too.
Hahhaha !

There wasn't even a border between USSR and Norway in 1925-1938. Let us hear more about these conflicts.
Aleksei22 wrote: John, his ( Mannerheim ) anticommunism was well known. It is a "medical-fact".
Is that so; a "medical-fact". I want to know about the medics who said so. He was anti-bolsevik. He also did not highly value national-socialists.

regards,

Juke T

Dear TopSpeed, are you a John ????


If not - pls. wait a bit.

isnt ????


Thank you.
Last edited by Aleksei22 on 26 Aug 2004 14:17, edited 1 time in total.

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 08:45
Location: Finland

Post by JariL » 26 Aug 2004 13:36

Alexei22,

Soviet and Finnish foreign policies both centered around League of Nations as long as Maxim Litvinov was Russian foreign minister. Actually also the disputes between the countries, for example the interpretation of Tarto peace treaty with regards to Finnish speaking population of Russian Karelia, were settled in that forum. Finland continued to rely on League of Nations even after Soviet policy changed. It is clear that the Soviet policy was the more realistic one given the events of the 1930's but it does not make Finnish policy unconstructive as you claimed above. How unconstructive was the answer that Finland is going to defend her suverinity against ANY foreign country? Soviet Union chose not to believe that Finland had the capacity to do so and both nations paid a price for that.

BTW, severe border incidents were not regular in 1930's in the Finnish-Soviet border but they did happen. But there was traffic in the border. In the beginning of 1930's several thousand people crossed the border from Finland to Russia in hope of finding better living conditions than in Finland. The great repression took heavy toll also in Finland between 1929 and 1932. Later in the 30's the traffic was to the other direction when people returned back from Soviet Union, if they could. And many were given permission to do so. Soviet-Finnish relations were strained but not necessarily hostile.

The real problem lay in the belief that all capitalist countries were the enemy that sought the destruction of the motherland of communism by military means. In this scenario, Finland was automatically expected to give her territory as a base to any capitalist country attacking Soviet Union. In the Finnish side there was constant suspicion that underneath the nice words Soviet Union actually was seeking to restore the borders of Imperial Russia and that Russian expansionism had just been disguised under the robe of communism.


Regards,

Jari

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 26 Aug 2004 17:25

Aleksei22 wrote:Dear TopSpeed, are you a John ????
As pointed out earlier, everyone is welcome to respond.

/Marcus

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Post by Tiwaz » 26 Aug 2004 17:42

Aleksei, I am very interested to hear more about these Guderians stukas... Could you tell me how, where and when they were tested in Scandinavia? And what Guderian had to do with it?

Please give us your sources where we can find proof of that. It's good thing I happened to get Guderians memoirs from library... I'm sure he would mention test of his stukas there... Can you give date so I can find correct part? I'm currently in part where they started operation Barbarossa and this far only mention of Stuka is basically when they screw up and bomb his panzers. Actually one of his men shot down one Stuka that did it...



Proof, proof, proof and once more proof. To this date you have proven round 0 of your claims. Don't you think this would be nice time to start?

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

Post by Aleksei22 » 26 Aug 2004 17:55

Tiwaz wrote:Aleksei, I am very interested to hear more about these Guderians stukas... Could you tell me how, where and when they were tested in Scandinavia? And what Guderian had to do with it?


Please give us your sources where we can find proof of that. It's good thing I happened to get Guderians memoirs from library... I'm sure he would mention test of his stukas there... Can you give date so I can find correct part? I'm currently in part where they started operation Barbarossa and this far only mention of Stuka is basically when they screw up and bomb his panzers. Actually one of his men shot down one Stuka that did it...



Proof, proof, proof and once more proof. To this date you have proven round 0 of your claims. Don't you think this would be nice time to start?

Hello, Tiwaz

Pls. dont desturb Guderians

I am reWRITING my remark in the form ( shape ) that will be a bit
transparent to you


_______________________________________________


( Remember , pls

1.- - about Gudarians, Luftwaffe - [in] USSR

2.- testing of future "Stuka's" bombing technology - in Scandinavia

).

___________________________________________________




Is it more clear ??? Do you get me right that Guderian wasnt a "Stuka" driver at all ????

Thank you.



.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Post by Tiwaz » 26 Aug 2004 18:11

Guderians luftwaffe? You know Guderian was father of German panzers and had nothing to do with luftwaffe?

And again... Do you have any evidence of this training taking place in Scandinavia? In UNOCCUPIED Scandinavia... We can hardly consider Germany performing tests in Norway or Denmark surprising considering that they were taken over. In those cases nations had no say over what tests were run. Also Finland after start of Continuation war also disqualifies from this great conspiracy since it is not unheard to let comrades in arms to do little tests on your soil.

So.

When, where and how.
Please answer those simple questiosn before you try to escape to another subject. Also others... Please do not provide our good Aleksei with some distraction and ask him something. I really would like to hear more about these stuka tests.

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

Post by Harri » 26 Aug 2004 18:15

Tiwaz wrote:Aleksei, I am very interested to hear more about these Guderians stukas... Could you tell me how, where and when they were tested in Scandinavia? And what Guderian had to do with it?
Wait a minute Tiwaz. I think Aleksei22 refers to Junkers' "remote aircraft factory" AB Flygindustri at Linhamn, Sweden. For example Finnish Air Force bought five Junkers K 43 planes (military versions = bombers) from there in the early 1930's while the sixth, a civilian model Junkers W 34 was bought directly from Junkers Flugzeugwerke A.G. at Dessau, Germany.

As far as I know much of the developing of the aircraft which was later known as "Stuka" (Junkers Ju 87) was done in Sweden. I think also prototypes were produced and tested there. But wasn't it originally developed to be a fighter, not dive-bomber?

It is another thing if Guderian had enything to do with them at that stage (early 1930's). Perhaps Aleksei22 knows this better and will tell us more (in another thread, because this issue is way off-topic and has little if nothing to do with Winter War or its hidden origins).

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

Post by Mark V » 26 Aug 2004 18:36

If you thought i let this (representative) slip to pass unnoticed, not an chance. :wink:

Still waiting eagerly evidence from Aleksei of the Norways malicious plans directed against USSR in turn of 30s/40s.

Or could it be possible that basic knowledge of history is missing (Norway as an NATO member during Cold War period - and by that ofcourse an part of evil capitalistic world - and by that an eternal enemy of Russian "patriots" - so ofcourse they must had been against grand state of Stalin during WW2 also) ??


Mark V

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

Post by Aleksei22 » 26 Aug 2004 19:24

WoW
PS. Sorry for off-top.

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

Post by Mark V » 26 Aug 2004 20:06

I guess i will never get an answer.

So, i guess we should take it as an fact that Norway was an small Scandinavian country with very little to do with military politics of Europe in turn of 30s/40s.

Mark V

PS. Aleksei, next time you post anything is this forum - better read the books first and not to post such laughable opinions...

PSS. Just opening an tin of Norwegian salmon....

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

Post by Harri » 26 Aug 2004 20:34

Mark V wrote:I guess i will never get an answer.
I think so too. It seemed that finally we were closing the topic a bit - but then (again):
Aleksei22 wrote:WoW PS. Sorry for off-top.
----

Well, what this thread has teached is that it seems certain claims are really hard to prove correct...

I'm sorry too. Everybody. :|

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

Post by John T » 26 Aug 2004 21:43

Aleksei22 wrote:Hello, John
John T wrote:
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 :) )

John, nonagression pact of 1932 was signed and ratified ( after a bit ajustments). It was initiated by USSR in 1927 and it's primary "tasks" - was to seaze a tensinon between USSR and Finland and find apropriate settlement to friquent local boderline conflicts.

I am sure you know that during 1925-1938 years USSR had a lot of boderline conflicts with Norway too.
Yes, the post ww1 borders where not always quiet, but I think you should enlight our dear fellow members of the board that you are refering to Territorial waters and Spitzbergen. As a sidenote, Norway and Denmark had some conficts regarding Eastern Greenland too. So the Norwegians did not just bully poor ol' mother Russia. :)


Aleksei22 wrote:
So, pact of 1932 was good and adequate antill USSR-German cooperation ( civil trade + mil. ) was OPEN, TRANSPARENT and PREDICTABLE ( after well known Rapallo's treaty ). I am sure you know that Both Sides were satisfied ( USSR+Germany+Scandinavia ) not only within civil relations and TRADE but in military area too

( Remember about Gudarians, Luftwaffe - USSR
testing of future "Stuka's" bombing technology - in Scandinavia ).
Alexei, please try to use more words when you debate, it is hard to follow your reasoning even when it can be supported by sources generally accepted in the west.

I am not suporting your reasoning in general but for the sake of fairness add:

Guderian was an "exchange student/officer" in Sweden in the late twenties (I think it was 1928) during that period he commanded his first tank force, IIRC it is in his memoirs, and a well known fact in Sweden, like the semiofficial history of the Arnoured forces "Pansartrupperna 50 år".

Stukas, Lennart Andersson has written a splendid book on AB Flygindustri i Limhamn as a proxy for Junkers. He has also written a number of articles on German- Swedish divebombing research and tests in Sweden.

(You did forget to mention Swedish- Finnish- -Dutch- German submarine developments.)


Aleksei22 wrote:
After Hitler abadonned Versalli treaty - things chanched cardinally.

Pls. remember "komik's-like" anti-arms-racing Conferrence Leaque of Nations - " La conferrence de la limitation de la reduction des armements" ...

So to say treaty of 1932 ( which was prolongated up to 1944 ) - MUST be REARRENGED .... by means of bilateral NEGOTIATIONS between USSR and Finland. That it was done by USSR, you are known with Finnish "constructive" reactions.
John T wrote: 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.
John, his ( Mannerheim ) anticommunism was well known. It is a "medical-fact". In reality - his revelation to Russia at all wasnt a bit different ( remember 1918-1920 ).
I have not seen any thing that supports that he in peace time intended offensive operations against USSR.

During the War he was the Icon and used this for Propaganda purposes,
(and was used by others).
When the democratic FInnish Cabinet descided taht they would not back down in 39, Manerheim had to adjust.
Aleksei22 wrote:
John wrote: Please elaborate on how the extremly profitable War business started teh winter war.

Cheers
/John T.
to be cont. a bit later/

Thank you.
I'll wait in suspense
John T.

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”