Finland Mystery

[Antti V]

the problem seems to be that you define victories by land lost and myself (and others) as the benefit of living in a free and independent country.

Well said. That is just how Russians seems to think: No matter how many thousands or millions men is died for few km2, it´s victory. After all, soldiers are just living natural resource which never end, and soldier´s life is worth of nothing as long it gives more land for that nation.

For LeoAU WW2 against Finland was victory, for us it was our victory with serious economical and cultural damages.

Here is the link for that Soviet propaganda song, what I did speak earlier about, and poor translation for it.
Suomi-Krasavitsa
Suomi-Krasavitsa lyrics
Click your mouse´s right button and select Save Target As... to save it to your PC.

[Tiwaz]

Leo. 1:3 may be normally rate of deaths but when attacker has huge superioirity in numbers of men, artillery, tanks, airforce and in many cases in quality as well (WW1 vintage artillery vs Soviet artillery for example).

And about amount of losses you stated... I think that number might be bit low. Not as bad as most estimates but still.

[Harri]

Most of you, or just you? Look at Harry's posts and tell me that mine kampf isn't his most loved book.

Leo, this if nothing proves that you don't understand a lot about Finnish people and Finland. That same happened to Stalin and his comrades too.

I have to honestly tell you that I have never seen that book. The book you probably meant ("mine combat"? ) was banned in Finland and was not available before 1990's (probably due to fear of Soviet reaction?). Maybe you know Stalin's collected volumes (books) better... :roll:

I said it wasn't fair war. And that explain rather poor performance of Red Army troops. What bugs me, that losing the war to an army like that is still concidered to be a victory by almighty superhuman Finns. What bugs me is that on those 3 months wars some people may think Finn army is better than German or Soviet.

So why didn't you just march to Oulu and Helsinki, or even Viipuri in 1939? I think your great losses and weak military success bug you much more. It was not only "three months". That same was seen many times and military results were eventually always the same: great losses and bitter defeats in combat (in 1939, in 1940, in 1941, in 1942 and in 1944).

[Juha Hujanen]

LeoAu.Losses in Winter War.
Soviet Union (that's more tricky.Statistics vary a lot.)

G.F. Krivosheev - "Casualties of the Soviet Armed Forces": 84 994 killed in action. Compare with 21,000 killed Finns - 1:4. Concidering terrain, weather, and the fact that Soviets attacked it is an acceptable ratio.
Krushev's 1 million is a great exaggeration as we all know now.

Finland lost 68 planes,Russians c.1000 planes.

Soviet aircraft shot down by the Finns, confirmed:
Bombers SB-2 -92; DB-3 - 53; TB-3 - 1;
R-5 -11;
Fighters I-15 -7; I-16-18; I-153-13
Ah, and 1 observation balloons.
TOTAL - 196, plus 85 unconfirmed.
aircraft figures are from http://www30.brinkster.com/huttunen/stats.htm
C.1000?? maybe a million?

If you say that is a victory,i sure as hell want to know how you define a fefeat?

So, USSR lost ww2 altogether, considering 27mln+ losses of which around 11 mln were combat losses. Great logic. And the fact that say, Soviets took Berlin means nothing since Soviet lost more soldiers during the war, right?
It's not the losses that matter, it's the objectives. I know it warms your heart that Soviets lost more men, but Finland still lost its land.

You mentioned Finland's atrocities.I'am sure that all of us want to hear what atrocities are you refering?.

Are you unaware of any? First of all, its part in Leningrad siege, its attempts to stop supplies coming in.
Also, third of Slavic population on the Finnish occupied territory was placed in concentration camps by Finns. The third of Slavic population died under Finn occupation.
Mark, you?ve seen the discussion in onwar forum, any comments?

For those aircraft losses.I did use figure c.1000 meaning planes lost by enemy action and by accidents.According book Lentolaivue 24 by Stenman&Keskinen(whitch are by the way held in great respect) Finnish Air Force claimed 207 shot down and 314 were credited to AAA.That's 521 total.And in war conditions atleast same amount of planes is lost in accidents,that's why figure c.1000.Book also says that recent Russian archives says 579 shot down,58 more than Finns claim.Figures in your source are way too low,mayby they are Finnish Air Force claims?

And for Finnish Concenration camps.25000 Russian citizens were cathered to camps.They were citizens of nation that Finland was in war with.They were security hazard for Finns and war-zone is no place for civilians.There was racists elements involved but no country is innocent to that.Not even Soviet Union.When civilians arrived to camps,they were in weak condition.They were starving,many had rickets,scurvy and many children had diarrhea..There was severe lack of food in Finland during winter 42,population in Finland too lived on slender rations,that combinating to typhus epidemic caused 3500 deaths in 42.At first camps were under Russian medical personel supervision but Finnish doctors took over 42.
In 2 years Finland created with Red Cross help healthcare and medical organization,whitch was as good as in Finland.Actually there was more hospital beds per capita in East-Carelia than in main Finland.And public health nurse organization was better than rest of country.In 44 helth of people was better than before war and infant mortality was lower than any time,peace or war.There were deaths but they occur from deceases and from lack of food,whitch was cronic in whole country.There weren't mass executions and these camps can't be compared to Germans ones.


Finnish part in siege of Leningrad has been covered,but i say anyhow.If Finns would have taken active actions against Leningrad,you couldn't talk about siege of Leningrad.Because there wouldn't be any siege.Leningrad would have fallen in late 41.

Funny.You didn't say anything about Russian partisan attacks,i wonder why?

[LeoAU]

In ANY army!! 1:3 losses when you attack vs defend.

Red Army standrad. Congrats. Either shot by the finns or by your own commisars. Swell.

See, now you are demonstrating your ignorance in this field.

What planet does your tribe inhabit? Mannerheim refused to take part in any siege against Leningrad,

You eithe read some history or lets stop this discussion. Finns were part of the blocade, Finns participated in the attempts to stop supplies coming in which resulted in millions of deaths. Are you aware of the flotilia created by German AND Finns for this purpose? Are you aware of Finn planes bombing city? Are you aware of genocide on Finn occupied territories against Slavic population?
People accuse Soviets for Katin, lands that were taken back from Poland(which were lost 20 years before). Yet, when Finland tries to get its lands back and treats civilians no better than Germans, it's ok. Double standards!

As for the germans besieging Leningrad, well blame them and not Finland.

Yeah, blame anyone, but glorious Finns.

If Mannerheim had wanted to take Leningrad, the Finns could have marched through it like a modern day gay parade since the Russians were mid deep in shit in summer 1941.

Yeah, yeah and march all the way to Moscow. Sure.

[edited by webmaster]

[LeoAU]

the problem seems to be that you define victories by land lost and myself (and others) as the benefit of living in a free and independent country.

For you to know. The only way how to define victories - by fulfilling your objectives - occupying some land, capturing a city, forcing your opponent to sue for peace at your terms. Some abstruct achievement like staying independant? Hm... I suppose so. Soviets needed those lands, Finns were forced to give them (twice). Can both sides be the winners? Hypothetically yes. But if the war ends the way both USSR-Finland wars ended, it is a victory for one side only, I am sorry.

[LeoAU]

I have to honestly tell you that I have never seen that book.

Well, Harri the way you talk about Soviet/Russian people is very similar how Hebbels propaganda way.

So why didn't you just march to Oulu and Helsinki, or even Viipuri in 1939?

See, initially it was your resistance. But later on some more important things were happening in Europe, far more important than Finland. Besides, you sued for peace, Soviets got what they wanted.

That same was seen many times and military results were eventually always the same: great losses and bitter defeats in combat (in 1939, in 1940, in 1941, in 1942 and in 1944).

Oh those Finnish troops! Soviets could beat any army - German, Japanese, all the axis, except those Finns! There was something in the air!
Harri, your location, terrain and what's more important being a second priority saved you from overruning. DO you really think that if you were on Soviets way on Berlin you could've stopped Soviets for a day?

[Tiwaz]

Funny how you mentioned Soviets beating all axis. Against both Finns and Germans Soviets suffered always bigger losses than opponent. Victory was usually achieved only by massing more men than opponent had bullets which is not sign of great strategic or warfare skill.

Forward in the name of Fatherland and Glorious Communist Party! All those who shall not advance will be shot!

[Harri]

And that what Russian as well as Soviet soldiers have done in the last thousand years. Just a question for you - are you aware of ANY successful (in your terms) wars where Russians earned their reputation?

You tell us all. Soviet reputation does not bother me a bit.

Or what would be better, please open a new thread and DARE to state that Russian soldiers haven't earned this reputation, or that a Finnish soldier is in some way better than a Russian. Your call. Would you DARE?

Why should I do that? Have you already organized "your side" to tear me or Finnish soldiers down? OK, I admit that your daddy is stronger than mine. Is that enough?

Your point?

You always refer to your great thousand years history (where I have heard that thousand years earlier?). Soviet history was very short and it ended more than ten years ago. I just mentioned that this is not a very good way of trying to defame Finns.

I thought that the whole Finland was part of Russian Empire for quite some time. 100% of it. As for the math, it is like that - 3 months=10%, you go and calculate when you ran out of land. I hope YOU never even try this again..

Finland was autonomous part of Russia. Do you know what that means?

I admit USSR won WW2. Finland was on German side, it lost. I admit Finland sued for peace and changed sides. I admit Finland lost those 10% and other stuff. I admit, can you?

You already seem to know all better then anyone else. What should I admit? That your losses were three to ten times bigger all the time during the war and we are still independent?

I think current situation is what counts if we look the economies of Russia and Finland they are almost the same in size. So, what does that tells? Isn't it strange that someone can nearly go to the moon but can't build decent houses? Also weapons are their best and well known products? Should I continue?

Gee, you jump from one argument to another. I said no country will ever respect another country independance, interest. You said it was like that a thousand or maybe hundred years ago. I said it happens even now, and listed examples. Your responce didn't make any sence.

I just followed your replies and arguments. Maybe the others understood better what I said...

[Harri]

Well, Harri the way you talk about Soviet/Russian people is very similar how Hebbels propaganda way.

Sorry, if I insulted you, Leo, or other Russians there, but that was not my intention. I'm always tried to tell what I personally know and what is the Finnish experience/knowledge on certain things. That has nothing to do with Germans or any "Hebbels".

See, initially it was your resistance. But later on some more important things were happening in Europe, far more important than Finland. Besides, you sued for peace, Soviets got what they wanted.

I see. Maybe it would have been more useful to conquer Finland then, because elsewhere your great achievements have been altered...:roll:

Oh those Finnish troops! Soviets could beat any army - German, Japanese, all the axis, except those Finns! There was something in the air!
Harri, your location, terrain and what's more important being a second priority saved you from overruning. DO you really think that if you were on Soviets way on Berlin you could've stopped Soviets for a day?

There was really something in the "air"...

Don't try to tell us all again that there was no plans to conquer Finland in 1939 and 1944? You tried and missed. That's all. Many Finnish soldiers saw captured Soviet message in July 1944 where the commander of Soviet army corps says something like that: "Our troops can't advance anymore because of tough resistance and extremely accurate artillery fire". Soon after capturing that message Soviet High Command realized that all attacks had been repulsed and began to move troops away from Finland. In that sequence.

But why did you stopped near Warsaw in 1944?

[Juha Hujanen]

LeoAu.

Mayby you belive better Russian sources."The situation degerated in Karelian Isthmus extremely dangerous,because unorganized rout of troops in there"

Platonov,page 88 in Bitva za Leningrad 1041-1944.

He's refering to situation in 9.9.41 in Karelian Isthmus.Finnish troops had efectively defeated Russian troops in isthmus.3 Divisions were encircled South of Viborg.Divisions lost all they equipment and suffered heavy casualties(7000 KIA and 9000 POW).12000 men were evacuated to Leningrad.When Finns stopped at old border,they were 30km away from city.Ahead of them were only remains of badly beaten 23.Army and 291.Division.A political decision was made by Finnish leaders,that troops would not continue.And same was done in East-Carelia.Troops could have continue and meet with Germans in Tihvinä.Also decision was made that Finnish troops would not cut the Muurmansk railroad line.When attack stopped they were 6 Finnish Divisions in Karelian Isthmus and they would have been able to countinue to city itself.

You really show yours lack of knoledge by saying that Finnish planes bombed Leningrad.Finnish President Ryti was strongly against military actions against city.He made sereral cases clear that Finnish planes should not bomb Leningrad,and they didn't.Only few recon flights were made but not a single bomb fell to city by Finns,and that is case with artillery as well.Airports around Leningrad were bombed,but they were military targets and quite legimate.
If you disagree,then prove me wrong.Show photos,or reports about Finnish planes bombing city.If Finn planes would have bombet so heavily defented city,surely there's photo of bomber with Finnish markings in city area.

You seem to have lot to say about Finnish-Soviet-Union war,but your facts(or more likely lack of them)don't pay the biils your mouth makes.

Juha

[Juha Hujanen]

And about that flotilla in lake Lagoda.Finns did have 6.8.41 2 small tugboats,4 small barges.Later 1 little cargoboat and motor gunboat was suplied as well.22.6.42 4 Italian torbedoboats arrived and 4 German KM-mineboats 8.7.42.Some Siebel ferries did also arrived.Finnish boats made so mine clearing missions and did take part for some of total 7 missions which German units did take.In 3 mission contact with enemy was made.Finnish boats acted as guards of flanks.Italians made 20 missions,in whitch 14.8.42 Moskva class gunboat was sunk.Few weeks later one barge was sunk by Italians.22.10.42 attack was made against lighthouse and garrison in island of Suho.Attack did not go well and boats retreated after they lost 5 ferryes.At the end of November German and Italian boats were taken off from Lagoda.

So you can see that these forces played really no part in siege of Leningrad.And these forces had mission also to protect Lagoda side of Karelian Isthmus against Soviet ambhious operations,whitch might put troops in Isthmus in danger of encirclement.
Soviet mnaval forces in Lagoda were estimated to be:10 gunboats,30 minesweepers,20 patrolboats,20 tugs and plenty of smaller motorboats and barges.

[LeoAU]

Funny how you mentioned Soviets beating all axis. Against both Finns and Germans Soviets suffered always bigger losses than opponent.

Not always. Study the subject. In 45(that's after Finland wisely swithed sides thanks to its great military ), despite the fact that Soviets were advancing, the loss ratio almost reversed.

Victory was usually achieved only by massing more men than opponent had bullets which is not sign of great strategic or warfare skill.

Tiwaz, please stop demonstrating your lack of knowledge. Do some reading, you will benefit from it, altgough you will lose these myths about inferiority of Soviets, but then again, it's not what you want, so don't do any reading, stay in ignorance.

[LeoAU]

You tell us all. Soviet reputation does not bother me a bit.

Thanks for admitting that world military history narrowed down in your mind to Finland achievements in WW2.

Finland was autonomous part of Russia. Do you know what that means?

I know what it means. Also, you don't forget that you were part of Russian Empire.

You already seem to know all better then anyone else. What should I admit? That your losses were three to ten times bigger all the time during the war and we are still independent?

Can I use some logic of yours? I state that Argentina won Folkland war, because it stayed independant. And no matter what you say it stayed independant!!!! There it won it.


[edited by webmaster]

[LeoAU]

Ok, about Finnish holocaust.
First of all, Finns were allies of Nazi Germany and joined their attack on USSR. As Serb Tiger has already pointed out by doing so they freed part of German forces.
Secondly, they did took part in Leningrad siege. You can post all you want about how morally Finns behave - they bombed only 'military' targets. See, Germans agenda was to destroy Leningrad TOGETHER with its inhabitants, starve/freeze them to death. Accepting that only military objects were targeted, you still DID help your nazi ally to fulfill their objective.
But. You did bomb targes that were used to save civilians - rail station which were used to carry supplies to the city etc. You helped Germans in this too.
As I have already posted you created flotilia to interrupt communication through lake. It DOESN'T matter how big/small the flotilia was, what is important that you tried to do it. If you had a battleship there or something you would've used it, you had little forces there, you used little forces.
Please don't try to draw a nice picture how you only wanted your lands back and how human you were.
You placed over third of Slavic population on the Finnish occupied territory in concentration camps. Now, this proportion was never reached even by Germans. Please don't tell me that internment camps weren't conc camps. 1/5 of Karelian population died under Finnish occupation.
Source for numbers - Seppala, 'Finland as occupier'.