Finland Mystery

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#76

Post by Topspeed » 18 Aug 2004, 21:10

SerbTiger wrote:[
But offcourse your version is no we FINNS are peaceful people we don't kill or take foreign land, we only want to establish better borders to protect us from our subhuman neighbours. And because were not "officially" a AXIS country if we keep denying our involvement in WW2 long enough everyone will forget.
Soviets called finns pigs. There was no racial superiority feeling in Finland towards Soviets. Finns called Soviets as Ryssä.

I think Adolf Hitler was considered a serious operator and a master of organising an unempoyed country to full employment who had also an effective army with an airforce of proven capabilities. That is why we got friendly with Germans..we wanted something to keep the soviets away from Finland also in the future. Germans OTOH wanted us to attack Soviets for the pay of the weapons..since we wanted Karelia back we had little objections. Really Finland was not offially nor unofficially axis country, but had a common enemy. I have no idea why Hitler hated the soviets so much. He was possibly not sane. I think his idea of destroying the European jews was his main objective, who knows. Maybe he wanted to conquer USSR and when that didn't succeed ( I think there was one plan of settling jews in the areas captured from Soviets ) they started the holocaust. I don't think the massdestruction of jews was known by the finns. Had we known this we might have turned our guns against him earlier. Bear in mind Soviets weren't clean either with 4 000 000 victims of their own people convicted for counterrevolutionary action only. They would have eagerly made Finland a communist too.

cheers,

Juke T

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#77

Post by Mark V » 18 Aug 2004, 21:25

I think Adolf Hitler was considered a serious operator and a master of organising an unempoyed country to full employment who had also an effective army with an airforce of proven capabilities. That is why we got friendly with Germans..we wanted something to keep the soviets away from Finland also in the future.


Finland and Germany did not come to closer in 1940-41 because admiration of Hitlers policy like you wrote.

Germany was Finlands only chance to counter USSR influence and relieve pressure that was directed toward us after Winter War (Petsamo, Enso, "log-burners", Kaleva, etc...). There was only two major player in European continent at 1940/41 timeframe. USSR had showed it's willingness to continue to chew Finland to pieces and pressure only increased after Winter War armistace - what was left ?? There were no alternativities. At least Germany was not going to invade the country and send population to camps far away...

Mark V
Last edited by Mark V on 18 Aug 2004, 21:27, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#78

Post by Hanski » 18 Aug 2004, 21:26

As this thread seems to have been revived after nearly two years of being locked, maybe its purpose should be clarified or re-defined. What are we really discussing under this title, what are then issues on or off topic? It is hardly worthwhile to re-heat past flamewars.

:D There is simply nothing mystical about Finland, is there?

When I checked the original beginning of this thread, the first two posts were as follows:

Message
Smert-Fashistam
Member



Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 122
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2002 2:03 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how is that during WW2, that neither Soviet or Nazi armies were able to overrun Finish defences that were 20 times less their size, and yet Russian and German armies beat my larger and at times better equipped opponenets. I would understand that weather, as proven in Russia would slow down Germans; however Russians were used to it




The Desert Fox
Member



Joined: 05 Aug 2002
Posts: 386
Location: Australia
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2002 10:07 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Finns under Marshall Mannerheim made full use of the terrain of Finland to frustrate both the Russians and then the Germans in the final months of the war. They fought a hit and run campaign, akin to the VC in Vietnam. From what I have read Finland is a very wooded country, which would have minimalized the effectiveness of such weapons as tanks and aircraft. The firepower of the more better equiped armies was reduced, therby balancing the scales more fairly in Finland favour.

Alas they lost but gave the Russians such a bloody nose they kept their independence after WW2. A fate which overwhelmed the baltic states.

Regards
The Desert Fox

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

Please, can you define more specifically the "mystery" for us to discuss on this thread, do we really need this to cover something (what??) that is not covered in the co-existing parallel ongoing threads?

Cheers,
Hanski

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#79

Post by Topspeed » 18 Aug 2004, 21:29

LeoAU wrote: It is a very difficult part of WW2 to understand. Well, as I stated before here or in some other forums, Winter war isn't concidered to be a part of WW2 by many historians. It was a war between just two countries. And Continuation war had a slightly different nature - well, continuation of the first one.
It wasn't fear and right for USSR to attack Finland in 39. I admit that. If Finland cooperated with USSR maybe it would've stayed independant and out of the war and without loss of land. We never know.
That is a fantasy. There was already a plan to put a puppet in place. Communists tought their new "religion" was better than anyone's ever before. They still think in large numbers that C.G.E.Mannerheim was an idiot, like their propaganda always highlighted.

best regards,

Juke T :idea: :roll:

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

#80

Post by Jari » 18 Aug 2004, 21:32

Topspeed wrote:Soviets called finns pigs. There was no racial superiority feeling in Finland towards Soviets. Finns called Soviets as Ryssä.
I would partly dispute this claim. It's not like political correctness or equality of races and cultures was in fashion in Finland (or elsewhere) in those days. Even today many Finns hold racist views toward Russians.

In propaganda Russians were often demonized as ugly, stupid, gullible, lazy, dishonest, deceitful, drunk, immoral, decadent, dirty, etc. While that was partly aimed to disparage communism, it was also understood that Russians as a nation were the archenemy of Finland and Finns ("ryssä on ryssä vaikka voissa paistais"). Positive comments on the enemy were rare if not nonexistent.

However, there was no official or widely shared racial theory as in Germany.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#81

Post by Mark V » 18 Aug 2004, 21:33

Topspeed,

Leo hasn't posted here for months. I don't think there is need to quote him.

Atleast you won't get an answer.

Mark V

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#82

Post by Topspeed » 18 Aug 2004, 21:35

Mark V wrote:
Germany was Finlands only chance to counter USSR influence and relieve pressure that was directed toward us after Winter War (Petsamo, Enso, "log-burners", Kaleva, etc...). There was only two major player in European continent at 1940/41 timeframe. USSR had showed it's willingness to continue to chew Finland to pieces and pressure only increased after Winter War armistace - what was left ?? There were no alternativities. At least Germany was not going to invade the country and send population to camps far away...

Mark V
Ok Mark,


I meant the same thing.


rgrds,

Juke T

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#83

Post by Topspeed » 18 Aug 2004, 21:37

Mark V wrote: Leo hasn't posted here for months. I don't think there is need to quote him.
Maybe he'll start posting again, who knows ?

Juke

User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#84

Post by Hanski » 18 Aug 2004, 21:41

So the Finland Mystery is about

- name calling in propaganda?
- ideology?
- reason to side with Germany in WWII?

Sorry about my insistence, but what is actually the topic?

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#85

Post by Marcus » 18 Aug 2004, 21:42

I didn't unlock this thread to see the same old pointless discussions being restarted, the thread was about how the Finnish forces managed to do so well against the Soviet forces.
Stay on that topic or the thread will be locked again.

/Marcus

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002, 08:06
Location: Finland

#86

Post by Tero » 18 Aug 2004, 23:59

By LeoAU
Soviets already got what they wanted IN the Winter war.
If this is the case why did Molotov bug Hitler constantly for a formal German OK to finish the business with Finland (later in 1940 IIRC) ?
How the fate of Baltic states is connected with Finland's decision to attack USSR in 41?
How did the decision to attack USSR in 41 connect with the Soviet decision to attack Finland in 1939 ?
Exactly. And that was what Finland did, and there is no need to take the high moral ground. The sooner you realise that no country ever did everything right the sooner you will get the real picture.
What is the "real" picture ? The "truth" as propagated by the Russo-Anglo-American history writing ? So far the Finnish "truth" about the events concerning Finland in WWII has been far more complete and unbiased than the one written down in the Russo-Anglo-American annals of the war. Down to the fact the Finnish estimate for the Red Army KIA during Winter War made right after the war in 1940 (200 000) has always been nearer to the mark than anything the Soviet and Russian sources have admitted to until very recently.
You wanted your lands back, so yes:
Tiwaz wrote: Only possible route for Finland out of that mess was to join up with Germany.
Actually, Finland more like preferred to surf the tidal wave on the top until it was safe to get off rather than get inundated and tossed around uncontrolably. :)

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 09:45
Location: Finland

#87

Post by JariL » 19 Aug 2004, 15:05

Hi LeonAU,

[quote] Harri, come on! You using your imagination too much. Soviets' objective was to kick Finland out of the war and get it to fight against Germany, which was achieved. If Finland was occupied, that would've been a bonus, but THE objective was to neutralise another Germany's ally, that's all.

This was the minimum objective that later on has been presented as the only objective. Difference between 1944 and 1939 was that the Soviet objectives had become flexible from the onset instead of being rigid.

[quote] Don't fantasise. Finland could've stayed independant and neutral without joining in together with Germany. But you wanted the lands. You lost. You entered the war to get them back. You did not succeed, please don't come up with new objectives - we wanted to stay free and independant.

Finnish primary war goal was certainly getting back the lands that had been lost and in this respect the war was clearly a failure. This view is by no means unfamiliar in Finnish history writing (look for example History of Finland by Erik Hornborg) but this aspect of the affair has been overshadowed by the summer of 1944.

In your writings in this DG, those of some of your countrymen and in discussions that I have had on the subject with some Russian students the most clouded issue is the Soviet policy towards Finland between the end of the Winter War and the beginning of the Continuation War. Russians usually believe that Finland was let to cook in its own juice without Soviet interfearance. This unfortunately was not the case.

The trouble started already when the new bordeline was to be marked and continued with demands to have right to transport troops to Hanko by rail. Both cases were naturally a result of relatively hasty decision making when the peace of Moscow was made. But it created the image of Soviet Union taking more than it had agreed on. Same applies to the Petsamo nickel.

But the real thumbling stock was the fifth column that Soviet Union tried to set up in Finland. The action followed the same pattern as in the Baltic republics and was centered around some activists of the then illegal Finnish communist party. The most notable feature of this activity were mass meetings where all sorts of wild claims were made and where "Sovetization" of Finland was openly propagated. When Soviet Union occupied the Baltic republics, it was no wonder that everyone drew the conclusion that Finland would be next in line. The situation was not made any better by a "shouting campaign" in the borders where Soviet frontier guards greeted their Finnish counterparties for example with "in the autumn Finland will follow the example of Estonia etc." Almost all people who lived those days later on agreed that they had never been so afaraid as they were then. Everyone knew that had Soviet Union attacked there and then, no help would have been forthcoming from anywhere.

When Germany offered its help nobody stopped to ask for the price. Soviet pressure continued also after the fatefull summer of 1940 but it had lost most of its edge because the Finnish government knew that Germany was not any more prepared to give Soviet Union free hands.

It is interesting that Soviet policy towards Finland remained very strict until the bitter end. There was practically no attempt for a more consiliatory policy at any point. In 1944 after the Continuation War Soviet policy was different. Finland was without a doubt in the mercy of the Soviets but the policy, allthough it was generally hard, included also soft elements. Soviet top artists were sent to Finland to perform, exhibtions were arranged etc. In a way Soviet Union tried to win at least some respect if not popularity among the population. Trade was also started very quickly.

If the Soviet Union was content in 1940 with the situation, why put so much pressure towards Finland in a manner that was bound to scare the hell out of every living soul in the country? Was this only a screw up?

Now, I am the last to claim that a more consiliatory policy would absolutely have stopped Finland from trying to get back what was lost in the Winter War. It is something I don't know. What I do know is that the external pressure silenced the true opposition in Finland and the decsions that led to the war were made in a relatively small circe under unnormal circumstances. It is also clear that if this part is forgotten it is very hard to understand why majority of the Finnish population was ready for another war with a gigantic neighbour. Firm belief in German victory is not enough for an explanation.

Regards,

Jari

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 09:45
Location: Finland

#88

Post by JariL » 19 Aug 2004, 15:07

Hi Marcus,

That much for using the quote feature:-( Sorry about that!

Regards,

Jari

Sami_K
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 10 Apr 2002, 08:46
Location: Finland

#89

Post by Sami_K » 19 Aug 2004, 15:08

JariL wrote:Hi Marcus,

That much for using the quote feature:-( Sorry about that!

Regards,

Jari
You just need to add " [/quote] " to the end of the quote, and it'll work fine.

Cheers,
Sami

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#90

Post by Topspeed » 19 Aug 2004, 15:09

Jari L,

You forgot slash [ / quote ] like that and it ends a quote !

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”