Why didn't USSR occupied Finland in 1944?

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Deine-Zukunft
Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 20:33
Location: Suomi

#61

Post by Deine-Zukunft » 31 Mar 2006, 11:45

It may have helped, but it would not have changed the result of the war !
Im not sure.

If germans would have first cosolidate more troops from east to west and decline the invasion of Normandy,simply cause of more troops.

And then concentrate fully on the east,all power available and repelled russians in one big battle maybe in the gates of Berlin and then the result would have been quite different,what it was - fall of ussr.

Finland would have been quite remarkable assistance if it would have continued the war on its full porential against ussr.

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

#62

Post by Topspeed » 31 Mar 2006, 12:17

Finnish resistance against soviets would have made zero difference in Normandy.

The only thing is fact that less refugees from eastern territories heading the Reich would have been killed when soviets didn't have Turku and its base to sink refugee and hospital ships enroute to Germany.


Deine-Zukunft
Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 20:33
Location: Suomi

#63

Post by Deine-Zukunft » 31 Mar 2006, 12:35

Finnish resistance against soviets would have made zero difference in Normandy.
You totally ignore Finlands power at that time! It was as its highest peak in summer 1944 and could have easily stop one or two or three more soviets massive attacks like it did in Tali-ihantala or start to attack successfully,that is then totally different thing would it been right to finnish people,to safrifice more and more troops without better reason.
The only thing is fact that less refugees from eastern territories heading the Reich would have been killed when soviets didn't have Turku and its base to sink refugee and hospital ships enroute to Germany.
Yes,but how do you think that ussr would have just invade Finland so simply?

Finnish front was averagely superiorly to others what germans(of course in german support) had.It lasted the whole war.

Mika68
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 26 Aug 2004, 14:15
Location: Finland

fight to the death

#64

Post by Mika68 » 31 Mar 2006, 12:54

finnjaeger wrote:Yep, your right carolwmahs, but what a glorious fight to the death it would have been :D .

best regards,TK

i have to say that hardly all Finnish would fight to the death :D
Most of people usually fit to new conditions. So did also Germans. Despite of Hitler wanted they fight to the death.

Deine-Zukunft
Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 20:33
Location: Suomi

#65

Post by Deine-Zukunft » 31 Mar 2006, 13:12

But did you know what finnish propaganda have said that if Finland lose the war?

There were so many frightening stories about that "what if we lose".Sterilization,delibreate famine,expulsion to siberia or simply that finns would have all killed and shattered all over ussr.Thats why i think every finn would have fighted til to a bitter end and maybe even Sweden would have joined to war and then maybe america.

Who knows.These are just "what ifs" but im quite sure that finns werent that cowards that would have just surrended if ussr had continued war against Finland.Finns would have fought til to a bitter end.Choise was life or death and the living under the rule of bolsheviks was something unthinkable.

Mika68
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 26 Aug 2004, 14:15
Location: Finland

East Germany

#66

Post by Mika68 » 31 Mar 2006, 13:20

Deine-Zukunft wrote:But did you know what finnish propaganda have said that if Finland lose the war?

There were so many frightening stories about that "what if we lose".Sterilization,delibreate famine,expulsion to siberia or simply that finns would have all killed and shattered all over ussr.Thats why i think every finn would have fighted til to a bitter end and maybe even Sweden would have joined to war and then maybe america.

Who knows.These are just "what ifs" but im quite sure that finns werent that cowards that would have just surrended if ussr had continued war against Finland.Finns would have fought til to a bitter end.Choise was life or death and the living under the rule of bolsheviks was something unthinkable.
We have excellent example as East Germany. I think that Russians hated much more Germans than Finns. Russians handled German civilians very roughly and brutally, such as rapings hurtings and so on. Very many German civilians were transported to re-build S.U. Millions of East-Germans moved to West before the border was closed. But however show must go on, and most part of East Germans fit for their new life conditions.

Deine-Zukunft
Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 20:33
Location: Suomi

#67

Post by Deine-Zukunft » 31 Mar 2006, 13:57

We have excellent example as East Germany. I think that Russians hated much more Germans than Finns. Russians handled German civilians very roughly and brutally, such as rapings hurtings and so on. Very many German civilians were transported to re-build S.U. Millions of East-Germans moved to West before the border was closed. But however show must go on, and most part of East Germans fit for their new life conditions.
I mean right at the war time not after the war.When Ussr was advancing closer to Germany.

If finnish propaganda would have told to finnish soldiers what Ussr is doing to germans particularly german civilians in the fall of 1944,capitulation would not been an option.If i know something,i know this,this is a fact.

Finns would have rather died than live under the bolsheviks,they would have fought til end.

I wonder why soviets agreed to peace?

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

#68

Post by Harri » 31 Mar 2006, 15:19

carolwmahs wrote:Thanks Mikko, yes I was speaking hypothetically.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood you... :oops:
carolwmahs wrote:Harri, Your patriotism is admirable. But my goodness, let's be realistic.
I'm a realist. It took one month for Soviets to advance 80 km in Karelian Isthmus. Still after almost three months Finnish Army had not been defeated anywhere, far from that. There is no doubt that the rest of the way to Helsinki would have been at least as "painful" to Soviets. In September Finnish Army was in full strength, nearly fully replenished, its depots were full of weapons and ammunition (which were in peace-time use partly until 1990's).
carolwmahs wrote:Do you really think that the Red Army couldn't roll its JS-II's down Arkadiankatu if they had really wanted to pay the price?
No, but as we now know even Soviets wouldn't have been that stupid to try. Hence the peace agreement suited both for the Finns and Soviets.
carolwmahs wrote:Casualties would have been very high, but the Soviet army in 1945 was the best and the largest in the world, and had a ruthless political leadership that was willing to use it mercilessly.
Soviet Army was without doubt the largest one but like I said even the leaders of USSR were not so stupid to try. Anyway USSR needed lots of its troops in occupied East and Central Europe and it also had to demobilize its reservists because warfare in never cheap for any state (like we see in the case of USA today) and reservists were needed for huge rebuilding, agriculture etc. In this situation a new large military operation against Finland wouldn't have been quite piece of cake because of its risks. I think USSR had to also take the opinion of Western Allies into account, because it was partly supplied by them. One hint of that was is seen in the statement of Teheran Conference where the special status of Finland was admitted. After that USSR had not totally free hands against Finland.

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

#69

Post by Topspeed » 31 Mar 2006, 15:35

Deine-Zukunft wrote:
Finnish resistance against soviets would have made zero difference in Normandy.
You totally ignore Finlands power at that time! It was as its highest peak in summer 1944 and could have easily stop one or two or three more soviets massive attacks like it did in Tali-ihantala or start to attack successfully,that is then totally different thing would it been right to finnish people,to safrifice more and more troops without better reason.
You forget that invasion in Normandy started the same day as the invasion of the USSR in the Karelian front !

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

#70

Post by Harri » 31 Mar 2006, 16:13

Topspeed wrote:You forget that invasion in Normandy started the same day as the invasion of the USSR in the Karelian front !
No, it didn't. The Normandy landing(s) took place on 6.6.1944 while Soviet attack on Karelian Isthmus started on 9.6. and the main attack on 10.6.1944.

Deine-Zukunft
Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 20:33
Location: Suomi

#71

Post by Deine-Zukunft » 31 Mar 2006, 16:20

I didnt talk about just one day,but weeks and months ! ! !Example if finns would have attacked in ussr in the fall of 1944,it would have succeeded well and soviets would have had to add lots of their troops to protect their area and that would have then,in that situation helped Germany very much.

You know that Britain almost stopped the war cause of its difficult problems in the fall 1944 and early 1945.

Finnish potential was great if it just would have use it ! ! !

Finland would have helped greatly Germany if Finland would have fought til last man.

Or do you think Ussr was invincible.It had lost millions and millions of men during the war and was shaking on its junctions.Only the second front was its saviour.Stalin had begged that for years.

Only 2 from the Ussr:s high command were brilliant militarily,Zukov and Konev.All the others were inferior to them or lots of inferior.

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

#72

Post by Topspeed » 31 Mar 2006, 16:38

Harri wrote:
Topspeed wrote:You forget that invasion in Normandy started the same day as the invasion of the USSR in the Karelian front !
No, it didn't. The Normandy landing(s) took place on 6.6.1944 while Soviet attack on Karelian Isthmus started on 9.6. and the main attack on 10.6.1944.
Well did it start the same week then ? :D

User avatar
Sven-Eric
Banned
Posts: 130
Joined: 13 Jul 2005, 20:05
Location: Sweden

#73

Post by Sven-Eric » 02 Apr 2006, 18:17

If I remember correctly, Finland's destiny was decided at the Tehran conference in 1943.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#74

Post by fredleander » 02 Apr 2006, 19:55

Sven-Eric wrote:If I remember correctly, Finland's destiny was decided at the Tehran conference in 1943.
Well, does that necessarily mean that Finland would adhere to what was decided there? Or was Finland involved in those discussions?

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

#75

Post by Topspeed » 03 Apr 2006, 11:39

Is there a link to Tehran conference ?

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”