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

Post by Aleksei22 » 27 Aug 2004 20:33

Topspeed wrote: The problem...was Mannerheim the problem ?
So he was the " most wanted man " in Soviet Union, because he stood up for liberty and justice. I agree he was modest man 100 %.




If it was returned, how come we don't have it ?


rgrds,

Juke
Hello Juke

Pls, ask Rjuti and " .... 100% modest man "


Thank you,


see you next week.

Have a good vacance.

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

Post by John T » 27 Aug 2004 20:38

Aleksei22 wrote:
John, i can post you a photo of only one epizode
of well-known herring-war between UK and
Iceland if you would post me official "Norway or Denmark"
demands (notes ) to rearrange sea borders of those states
in 1924-1938. + War-Ship Demonstrations too ...
Think that will lead us off topic.
Aleksei22 wrote: Thank you. Its very important detail too espesially within Germany
arms racing. Re. Germany "solved problems of Leaque of Nations" while
all Scandinavia refused to use its paragraph 16 trade-restriction
provisions.
I am not familiar with paragraph 16,
I remember that LN blockade against Italys involvment in Abbesinia failed miserably.
Aleksei22 wrote:
John T wrote: I have not seen any thing that supports that he in peace time
intended offensive operations against USSR.

It was very HARD ( to USSR government ) to make a detailed
tracing of his "intentions" in 1937-1939, but current situation
(arms-racing ) and his "business"
in 1918-1920 ( Order of the Day, Letter of War, restitution demands, etc )
- were well-known. Informed ( USSR government ) must made
conclusions. Thats was done ( negotiations ). Finn' total
ignorance responce - known too. "Windows of opportunities" was closed.
Unique alternative to it - known ( to both sides ) too .....
One way is to ask each party was is unacceptable and then see if both parties could live with what the other side considered essential.

So USSR could state that they did not axcept Foreign troops in Finland.
The Finns stated they did not want to move the borders.

The finns demand where obviously not acceptable for USSR thus the winter war.
Aleksei22 wrote:
John T wrote:
When the democratic FInnish Cabinet descided taht they would
not back down in 39, Manerheim had to adjust.
How we can coinside German-Finnish-Barbarossa-Alliance with Great-Finland ???

Winter-war ??? or Order of the Day ( 15 of march 1918 ) ????
I Still belive USSR started the winter war, I have no evidence of a German-Finnish-Barbarossa-Alliance before the summer of 1940.
The civil war was a war and what is printed as propaganda do not have to be the policy for a democratically elected Cabinet twenty years later.
Aleksei22 wrote:
let see below some GENERAL remarks and refferences

__________________________
. wrote:
1 -

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/U ... con-6.html

The Government's increased demands for war could be met from
three sources:

2.- from capital resources

To me that is natural part of capitalistic world, the countrys capacity to free cash, to buy industry to build guns.
Capital resources are as far as I understands it in a macroeconomical perspective, that is state owned property, gold reserves and incomes from taxation.

You need means of production(industries) to build arms and the most common way to create production is to buy industries.


Aleksei22 wrote:
. wrote:
http://www.elginhistory.com/eaah/eaah-ch08.htm

4. The Local Arsenal
The Depression ended with the increased expenditures
for national defense that followed the outbreak of war

in Europe. Late in April 1940, the Elgin National Watch
Company received a War Department contract for developing
equipment and a production plan for mechanical time fuses.
__________________________________________

Yes, and some cities in Ural grew during WW2 too.
Do not see the connection with the origin of the winter war.

UNLESS - US capitalist where able to influence Stalin to make demands ono Finland taht Finland did not tolerate and found unacceptable.

Aleksei22 wrote:
Did USSR wanted to "consume" Finland ( after WW ) ???

Why USSR "returned" Petsamo to Finlang Again ????

Thank you.
IFAIK Post WW2, The soviet Union was quite content that Finland paid her debts, keept shut in International affairs and minded her own bussines. a situation I think Stalin/Molotov could have reached that result without the winter war.
The only thing that was required where some mutual respect.


Not Taking Petsamo in 1940 was a start, if USSR had actively supported Swedish-Finnish cooperation and made it shure that the thing that was totaly unacceptable where foreign troops on Finnish soil the Finns who was opposed of leaning towards Germany whould have had a much easier job.

Cheers
/John T.

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

Post by Aleksei22 » 27 Aug 2004 20:42

Mek wrote:
Aleksei22 wrote:
. wrote:
Software translated

10-20 nov 1939. Finland forced the military preparation. Military minister of Finland J.Niukkanen has declared, that " war to us is more favourable, rather than satisfaction of Russia proposals "

Did he really declared this at public, or not ???
I believe Niukkanen was aware of what was agreed in the Secret Protocol of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, that USSR's target/goal was the whole country and he acted accordingly to that. He was one of the ministers that wanted to request help from France-Britain and opposed the Moscow peace treaty of 1940.

Regards,
-Pete
Hello, Pete

Do you understand WHAT a Q. I ASK ???


Did he really declared this at public, or not ???



YES or NOT, pls.

Thank you.

see you next week.

have a good vacance too.

Mika68
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 13:15
Location: Finland

Repola-Porajärvi

Post by Mika68 » 27 Aug 2004 20:48

I've read from Finnish sources following items:
Soviet Union demanded area from Carelian Isthmus (from border to Koivisto-Lipola line), western part of Kalastajasaarento in Petsamo and Hankoniemi for rent to Soviet Naval. Soviet Union would give Porajärvi-Repola area near Finnish Kuhmo.

So I think your yellow area north of Ladoga is too large.

I think that Soviet demands were not unacceptable if Soviet Union would kept its promises and respected independence of Finland.
What would happen in summer 1940 in Finland when Hitler occupied neighbourland Norway and Soviet occupied Baltic states.

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

Post by Mark V » 27 Aug 2004 20:54

John T wrote:
Not Taking Petsamo in 1940 was a start, if USSR had actively supported Swedish-Finnish cooperation and made it shure that the thing that was totaly unacceptable where foreign troops on Finnish soil the Finns who was opposed of leaning towards Germany whould have had a much easier job.

Cheers
/John T.
USSR did not take Petsamo because it was not usable to them (mine and enrichment plant were not ready for production) and didn't want to mess with British and Canadian interests. Very soon after it was clear that Commonwealth economical interests were not relevant on current situation in European mainland USSR showed their true attitude toward Petsamos natural resources.

I fully agree on the second part of your post. The policy toward Finland in 1940-41 (and by that largely the choices Finns made) was entirely USSRs own choice.


Regards, Mark V

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

Post by Topspeed » 27 Aug 2004 21:08

Did Molotov really say this:

Marraskuussa 1940 Molotov tiedusteli Hitleriltä, miten Saksa suhtautuu, jos NL, "joka edelleen tuntee olevansa Suomen uhkaama", lopullisesti selvittää välinsä tämän maan kanssa, Hitler vastasi, ettei Saksa "halua uuden sodan syttyvän pohjoisessa".

Translates as:

In November 1940 Molotov asked Hitler how would Germany react if USSR " which still feels to be threatened by Finland " once and for all gets level with that country. Hitler answered, that Germany doesn't want a new war to start in the north.

-------------

Aleksei,

Finnish troops were dug in already by October on the Karelian Isthmus. We knew Soviets were going to attack and Soviets knew it too. So what ever J.Niukkanen said wasn't what the others hadn't known already by October 1939.

have a good one,

Juke T
Last edited by Topspeed on 28 Aug 2004 18:18, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Tero » 28 Aug 2004 11:13

By Aleksei22
Software translated

10-20 nov 1939. Finland forced the military preparation. Military minister of Finland J.Niukkanen has declared, that " war to us is more favourable, rather than satisfaction of Russia proposals "

Did he really declared this at public, or not ???



Did he really declared this at public, or not ???



YES or NOT, pls.



Since your source is software translated it is hard to say.

As stated before you really should start referensing your sources.

For example it is hard to say what were the exact words your software has translated as "favourable" and "satisfaction". Since I suspect the translation is from Finnish to Russian to English through a Soviet era propaganda filter and your software has given you a choice between alternate terms (like favourable vs preferable and satisfaction vs conciliation) it would be best to give the exact direction to the Finnish original so a proper translation can be made.

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

Post by Tiwaz » 29 Aug 2004 10:53

Could Aleksei show us order of the day from 1919 he mentioned and how it is RELEVANT to hidden agenda of Winter war?

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

Post by Aleksei22 » 30 Aug 2004 07:16

This post has been edited because it violated a warning issued by Marcus
Marcus wrote: Aleksei22,

Several questions have been put to you about the claims you have made in this thread that you have not responded to, please do so before posting anything else in this thread.

/Marcus
/Juha Tompuri

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

Post by Tiwaz » 30 Aug 2004 07:23

Aleksei, perhaps Jakobsen has written something like this but it is view of Germany and Hitler of Europe and how things should proceed. It was not clear statement of goverment of Finland but view had by Germany.

For example Leningrad. Finland had no interest in but in this paper it was to be given to Finland.

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002 19:18
Location: Helsinki

Post by Hanski » 30 Aug 2004 07:58

I think it was somewhere about page 18 of this thread when I had the false impression of sensible contributors creating some structure into this discussion.

By now, on page 31, we still have read nothing on the famous "hidden origins of the Winter War" besides more incoherent gobbledygook with obsessive paranoid ideas involving bankers, Jews, Western powers, and so on, spiced with suspicions whether Member A of the Forum is actually Member B, or whether C is actually D.

I am afraid this discussion is leading us nowhere, but it will only proliferate into more and more sidetracks, allegations based on total ignorance and misunderstanding of elementary facts, questions left unanswered, and sources omitted, until the plot of the discussion starts going around in circles, since apparently there is no logical main point to be made in the foreseeable future.

Thank you for interesting details on facts in many of the contributions, and for all the entertainment that this unpredictable thread has offered as a whole. I will now retire for a while to see, whether any "hidden origins" have emerged to see daylight by page 45! :lol:

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

Post by JariL » 30 Aug 2004 08:02

Hi JohnT,

You mentioned above submarine development between Finland-Netherlands and Germany. You forgot to mention the fourth party: Soviet Union. One of the most numerous submarine types of the Soviet Navy in WWII was even known as "Nemka" ("German lady") because of this co-operation.

BTW, Finnish submarine Vesikko was the prototype for IIA, B and C classes of the German navy. The other 4 submarines paved the way for the type 7 submarines. It is also noteworthy that the co-operation between Finns and Germans in this field ceased soon after Hitler came into power. And it was not only because Germany could start producing subs at its own ship yards.

Best regards,

Jari

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

Post by John T » 30 Aug 2004 22:17

Mark V wrote:

USSR did not take Petsamo because it was not usable to them (mine and enrichment plant were not ready for production) and didn't want to mess with British and Canadian interests. Very soon after it was clear that Commonwealth economical interests were not relevant on current situation in European mainland USSR showed their true attitude toward Petsamos natural resources.

Regards, Mark V
Well, I forgot the mines.

In Sweden we use the Name Petsamo when refering to that HardToRememberStrangeFinnish port of ,
excuse me Limahamaari(?).

BTW
Do any one have sources to the "Petsamo traffic" Finlands Atlantic trade taht continued during the time period between Weserübung and Barbarossa.

Peter Krosby, Finland, Germany, and the Soviet Union 1940-1941
(it is on my to read -list)

Neutrality and navicerts : Britain, the United States, and economic warfare, 1939-1940 / Robert W. Matson
Despite the name, one chapter is focused on Petsamo, Finland and Sweden.

America and the Winter War, 1939-1940 / Travis Beal Jacobs
Contains some info on the post Winter war situation too.


Cheers
/John T.

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

Post by John T » 30 Aug 2004 22:22

JariL wrote:Hi JohnT,

You mentioned above submarine development between Finland-Netherlands and Germany. You forgot to mention the fourth party: Soviet Union. One of the most numerous submarine types of the Soviet Navy in WWII was even known as "Nemka" ("German lady") because of this co-operation.

BTW, Finnish submarine Vesikko was the prototype for IIA, B and C classes of the German navy. The other 4 submarines paved the way for the type 7 submarines. It is also noteworthy that the co-operation between Finns and Germans in this field ceased soon after Hitler came into power. And it was not only because Germany could start producing subs at its own ship yards.

Best regards,

Jari
Sorry to go further off topic.

I have not read the book on the Finnish part in this, so my info is a bit scetchy dod not Knew the Soviet connection.
How did Finns learn Submarine tactics then?

In Sweden, one of the more Anglofile Naval officers, leaked that German
officers trained with Swedish Navy as late as 1936.

Cheers
/John T.

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

Post by JariL » 31 Aug 2004 08:02

Hi JohnT,

German officers and crews tested the boats in Finland and I am sure some excange of information took place. However, Germans were planning a different kind of submarine warfare than Finns. In our case the subs were an extension of the coastal artillery not something that would be used against shipping (sea routes would be closed for shipping anyway).

Finns had a lot of co-operation with Estonians and Swedes. It was revealed a couple of years ago for example that both Estonian and Finnish navy crews practised on each others territorial waters in the 1930's. I would not be surprised if the same applied to Swedes because there were joint defence plans at sea between Estonia, Finland and Sweden. The plan was simply to close the mouth of Gulf of Finland with coastal artillery and chain of subs and ships. Finns and Estonians provided the subs and both Swedish and Finnish monitors would be used too.

Best regards,

Jari

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”