question about Väinö Linna's Unknown Soldier

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
User avatar
Bair
Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 01 Nov 2002, 15:32
Location: Finland, Helsinki
Contact:

question about Väinö Linna's Unknown Soldier

#1

Post by Bair » 22 Sep 2004, 11:10

Re-reading the classic, I started wondering about the passage in the end of the book, where Linna talks about lotta whos standards became very low and she was ready to date even an AT-man. What was the problem with AT-men in Finnish Army? Why did they have such a low status? :roll:

with best regards,

Bair

User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

#2

Post by Jari » 22 Sep 2004, 12:06

I believe the point was that the guy had been a mere rank-and-file sotamies, not an officer. Being from AT myself, I haven't heard of any such jeering at us as there is for e.g. artillerymen.


Mikko H.
Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: 07 May 2003, 11:19
Location: Turku, Finland

#3

Post by Mikko H. » 22 Sep 2004, 13:37

From Knut Pipping's classic Komppania pienoisyhteiskuntana I remember reading that AT-men were held in very high regard. Soldiers recognized that it took balls of steel for a man to try to destroy an enemy tank with infantry weapons, esp. before Finns were supplied with Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks. A soldier wearing a Tank Destruction Badge (after the badge was instituted in June 1944) was treated with due reference, even by a superior officer.

BTW, I recommed highly Pipping's book. It's an extremely interesting sociological study of the company where Pipping served as an alikersantti during the Continuation War. Pipping started taking notes during the quiet years of positional warfare and after the war turned his notes into a doctoral thesis. It was originally written and published in Swedish with name Kompaniet som samhälle.

User avatar
Bair
Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 01 Nov 2002, 15:32
Location: Finland, Helsinki
Contact:

#4

Post by Bair » 22 Sep 2004, 22:28

thank you for your answers!

then let me reformulate my question: does anyone have a clue/idea why out of all possible branches Väinö Linna actually chose AT-guys? I mean, he could have written: her standards became so low that she was ready to date even a mortar crew guy/cook/clerk from the battalion staff? :roll:

with best regards,

Bair

User avatar
Uninen
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2004, 20:26
Location: Festung Europa, Finnland

#5

Post by Uninen » 22 Sep 2004, 22:59

For all i know it was the talousmies, kirjuri or kuljettaja that are and have always been the most "hated" in the Puolustusvoimat..

(cook, "typist" and driver [of a truck..] )

and i cannot see why the at-men or crew would count as somebody "lowly" as they were and would be the ones that rescue the average (infranty) trooper from certain doom when the enemy tanks start to roll..

Maybe Linna had during his service some problems with at-gunners (maybe some crew kicked his ass?) ;) and so he chosed the at-men..

and also it has been always been "over my head" why people "hate" artillerymen.. after all it was the arty (for the most part) that made the defeat of soviet 1944 summer offensive possible.. just look at Tali-Ihantala..

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

#6

Post by Juha Tompuri » 22 Sep 2004, 23:29

Bair wrote: let me reformulate my question: does anyone have a clue/idea why out of all possible branches Väinö Linna actually chose AT-guys? I mean, he could have written: her standards became so low that she was ready to date even a mortar crew guy/cook/clerk from the battalion staff? :roll:
Well...as a infantry man myself...all the other branches are been made up to support us: artillery, engineer, signals, AT...
The fact that Linna choosed an AT-man instead of an artillerist, also reveals that Raili Kotilainen still had some standards left :wink:

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

#7

Post by Jari » 12 Oct 2004, 09:47

Uninen wrote:and also it has been always been "over my head" why people "hate" artillerymen.. after all it was the arty (for the most part) that made the defeat of soviet 1944 summer offensive possible.. just look at Tali-Ihantala..
It is typical, I think for all armies, that those who have to take the pounding in the frontmost lines feel envy for the rear echelons, and don't appreciate them as high. Supply men not only avoid the greatest harm, but they have access to all the food, and thus can both be blamed for scrounging extras for themselves AND for the lousy taste of the stuff that others have to eat. In the case of artillerymen, the fear of friendly fire may also have contributed to the portrayal of gunners as idiots in army folklore.

Of course, supply branch is the most important part of any army, without the horse/truckmen the heroes could be throwing rocks and pinecones at the enemies. :)

Steady
Member
Posts: 436
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 21:45
Location: Helsinki, Finland

#8

Post by Steady » 12 Oct 2004, 21:16

During the 1930's, Finnish Army rejected a large part of the conscripts from service because there was not enough money to give every man an army training. Just as today, every healthy man was obliged to apply for army service, but unlike today, not all were accepted.

Before Winter War Finnish Army had a very small artillery branch. When the Finns received large amounts of equipment from abroad and as war booty, artillery units suddenly needed a lot more men. During and after the Winter War, many artillerymen were trained from among the men who were originally rejected from regular service. So maybe there is some truth as to the "inferiority" of artillery men during those times: the artillerymen had not been fit for army service. Of course, today there is no difference as to the quality of men between artillery and infantry, since as I recall it, the place where an individual man would serve is decided as much by sheer luck as by his individual qualities.

For example, a friend of mine wanted to apply for a border guard unit, but the guy in line in front of him got the last free place. In my opinion, this is also how the army treats people generally, not as individuals but as a mass of faceless objects. The latter is an opinon only.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#9

Post by Harri » 13 Oct 2004, 00:16

Not only the expanding of field artillery arm caused problems in finding trained artilley soldiers but also our regional mobilization system. There were areas where weren't virtually any trained engineers, signalsmen or artillerists, but still the units planned to be formed were founded. Infantrymen were just hastily trained for new tasks. Of course it was hard for a few men, NCOs and officers who had the correct training and had to teach the others.

----

(I think that same method is still used. I'm the good (or bad) example of being trained for Finnish Air Force duties but still I found myself being in the field artillery refresher courses at Niinisalo... :lol:

Steady, having surname starting with early alphabet helps a lot in the Army... :P ...and sometimes doesn't help: once my weekend holiday was cancelled when one guy got sick and went to hospital too early before we had left. They needed of course new man to "alarm command". I was "luckily" that man first in that list... :| Even Corporals avoided me after that... :) )

Steady
Member
Posts: 436
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 21:45
Location: Helsinki, Finland

#10

Post by Steady » 13 Oct 2004, 02:17

I once adviced a boy who wanted to get to a specific unit (he is planning to become a professional officer) : get to the door of the conscription building at 5 in the morning on the conscription day: the first guy can choose between leopard tanks and paratroops!
Steady, having surname starting with early alphabet helps a lot in the Army... ...and sometimes doesn't help: once my weekend holiday was cancelled when one guy got sick and went to hospital too early before we had left. They needed of course new man to "alarm command". I was "luckily" that man first in that list... Even Corporals avoided me after that... )
Oh those memories... also the position of the room in the barracks could be a factor: the sergeants in search of workforce had a habit of walking into the nearest room from the stairs... not to mention reputation: we had a small paper where we marked the times each guy had a "nakki" (job)... one particular person had three times more than any of the others. Could be he had bad feet and so spent a lot of time in the "vemppa" (free from physically taxing service), but that also made him a vigorous candidate for all kinds of kitchen duty!

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”