Suho Lighthouse

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11469
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Suho Lighthouse

Post by Juha Tompuri » 17 Dec 2005 16:12

batu wrote:The attack on Suho is well documented, I am sure you can find info baout it for mFinnish hisotrians, there is even some info online,
http://users.tkk.fi/~jaromaa/Navygaller ... Ladoga.htm
the operation against Suho was conducted in October 1942 with joint Finish, German, Italian forces.
As far as I understood Finns were in charge of the wohle war in Ladoga lake.
The only purpose of having a fleet in LAdoga was to prevent supplies to reach beseiged city.
Suho was a little garrizon with the lighthouse, through which the supplies were directed into LEningrad.
IT was attacked twice but both times the attack was repelled.
I'll dig some more info on it if you want.
Could you list the Finnish units that took part at the joint attack against Suho.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4214
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 17 Dec 2005 18:06

This is about the last attack against Suho. According to "Laatokan puolustajat Karjalassa" [Defenders of the Lake Ladoga in Karelia] by Olavi Väliaho (2000):
[21.10.1942]Korvettenkapitän von Ramm: EFO [Einsatsstab Fähre Ost] will carry out a rush to Suho. MAS boats were asked to secure.
The rush was directed to the southern Lake Ladoga against the Suho lighthouse and [coastal] battery. Departure at 16 O'clock. Partisipants:
- HQ barge
- 7 heavy combat barges
- 4 light combat barges
- hospital barge
- 3 supply column barges
- 7 infantry boats
- Mas 528
At 21 O'clock Mas 528 carried the officers of EFO to the barges ahead of Konevitsa. The boat will stay there during the action. Mas 526 and 527 departed to patrol to the southern Lake Ladoga to secure EFO.

[22.10.1942]Between 6.15 - 6.47 O'clock barges fired Suho [coastal] battery which responded to fire after two minutes. Battery was silenced. At 6.19 two [Soviet] gunboats and MO boats came into sight from the direction of New Ladoga. Fire was opened against the enemy vessels. At 6.35 light barges fired against Suho. One engineer and three strike groups were launched in infantry boats at 6.50. In a close combat the major part of the Suho personnel was destroyed, six POWs were taken of which one died. Suho lighthouse and radio station were destroyed. At 7.10 [attacking force] was ordered back.

User avatar
Bair
Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 01 Nov 2002 14:32
Location: Finland, Helsinki

Post by Bair » 17 Dec 2005 18:48

What were the Finnish losses in the operation? Russian view of the battle was that operation was a failure for joint Finnish-German-Italian force as the island remained under Soviet control.

with best regards,

Bair

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11469
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 17 Dec 2005 20:14

Hi Bair,

Bair wrote:What were the Finnish losses in the operation?
AFAIK none, because AFAIK there were no Finns attacking against Suho island.
But let's see what batu finds out.

Russian view of the battle was that operation was a failure for joint Finnish-German-Italian force as the island remained under Soviet control.
AFAIK the purpose of that attack was not to capture, but to silence the radio station and the coastal artillery there.

Few links more:
http://heninen.net/laatokka-war/english.htm
http://heninen.net/aunus/english.htm

Regards, Juha

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 18 Dec 2005 01:40

[21.10.1942]Korvettenkapitän von Ramm: EFO [Einsatsstab Fähre Ost] will carry out a rush to Suho. MAS boats were asked to secure.
The rush was directed to the southern Lake Ladoga against the Suho lighthouse and [coastal] battery. Departure at 16 O'clock. Partisipants:
- HQ barge
- 7 heavy combat barges
- 4 light combat barges
- hospital barge
- 3 supply column barges
- 7 infantry boats
- Mas 528
At 21 O'clock Mas 528 carried the officers of EFO to the barges ahead of Konevitsa. The boat will stay there during the action. Mas 526 and 527 departed to patrol to the southern Lake Ladoga to secure EFO.

[22.10.1942]Between 6.15 - 6.47 O'clock barges fired Suho [coastal] battery which responded to fire after two minutes. Battery was silenced. At 6.19 two [Soviet] gunboats and MO boats came into sight from the direction of New Ladoga. Fire was opened against the enemy vessels. At 6.35 light barges fired against Suho. One engineer and three strike groups were launched in infantry boats at 6.50. In a close combat the major part of the Suho personnel was destroyed, six POWs were taken of which one died. Suho lighthouse and radio station were destroyed. At 7.10 [attacking force] was ordered back.



It's interesting that the attack as portrayed acc. to this sourse seems like a victory, while in reality it was a defeat, and a main reason for the end of the Axis operations on Ladoga. Besides, what is "Defenders of Ladoga?" It's like Soviets would call themselves "Defenders of Viipuri" during the Winter war.

From the web-sources so far there is no direct mentioning of Finnish boats taking part in the atack, but hte info differs greatly in different sources.
I'll dig the Baryshnikov's book next week. The thing is that it's not only Russian view that it was joint Finno-Italian-GErman attack, I've read on the american site the same thing. I guess even if there were Finnish boats there their number would be minimal, since Finns had quite very little "Finnsih" fleet there.

The next attempt was made in the night to October 22-nd. Using cover of bad weather the vessels came close to the isle unnoticed and destroyed the radio station from the first salvo. But a Soviet patrol-boat happened to be on patrol in that region and had noticed the landing forces, informed Soviet Command and attacked the enemy vessels. As a result several vessels were damaged and after an air attack by 4 bombers, only 70 commandos managed to land on the isle at 8 o’clock AM. They failed to capture the artillery battery and after a short hand-to-hand combat were driven to the Western part of the isle from where they were evacuated. At 9 AM. Soviet planes attacked the landing vessels retreating to Northwest. Later on the landing flotilla was overtaken and attacked by Soviet patrol-boats. Out of 23 vessels that took part in the landing operation 17 were sunk or seriously damaged.

http://heninen.net/laatokka-war/english.htm

Both Axis Ladoga-based flotillas were formally placed under the command of Finnish Ladoga Coastal Defense Brigade and were based in Lahdenpohja but acted under the commands of German Navy High Command.


IT seems that Finns did play part in the war on Ladoga, at least in terms of command and coordination of naval forces, besides all the Italians and German boats were stationed in Finnish ports and were transported around Finland. So, there was a substantional coordination if not direct command form Finnish side.
Finnish direct participation was limited by Finnish recourses. according to the below menitoned site, Finns had only one battleship "Susi" in Ladoga at the beginning of the war. So they contributed as they could to the common goal, and they provided harbours, routes, personell, command. And considering that the only objective of the existence of the Ladoga flotillia was to disrupt the supplies to the starving city, Finnish participation in it puts serious doubts at the claim that Mannerheim refused to participate in the seige of Leningrad.
The below link also says that colonel järvinen was in charge of the naval forces.
Anyway, even if in the attack on Suho there were no Finnish boats, it doesn't disprove the fact that Finns participated in the war on Ladoga, and hence participated in the starving of the cilvilians in the beseiged city.

Start of operations

The commander of naval forces on Ladoga, colonel Järvinen, decided 14 August that the naval units were in condition and free to operate. The Italian boats started their patrols on immediately 14 August and on the night 14/15 August the three boats met three enemy Bira type gunboats and sunk one of them...

I'll dig Baryshnikov's book, there was more n Mannerheim and LEningrad there.
And one little note to Harri,
I haven't used a single Soviet source so far, so your constant allegations of "soviet propaganda" sound quite paranoid to me.
as for:
I
know rather well about the operations on Lake Ladoga because I have a book on these. It has been discusses in another thread that the arrival of these German and Italian forces came to a surprise to Finns. Eventually these forces were seen clearly too weak to achieve any results (like Finns had thought all the time). So, these attacks were not in the Finnish interests but they could not be forbade either.

sounds again apologetic. So Finns were "surprised" and it was agaisnt Finnish interests, but for some mysterious reason they provided these boats with harbours, routes, and actually commanded these forces. something doesn't fit here. :?
Maybe you're reading only those books that fit your preconceived pretty idea of Finns waging "totally separate" just war only to take back what was theirs
form those bloody Russians who never change their low evil nature?

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11469
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 18 Dec 2005 02:11

batu,

batu wrote:And one little note to Harri,
I haven't used a single Soviet source so far, so your constant allegations of "soviet propaganda" sound quite paranoid to me.


Maybe you're reading only those books that fit your preconceived pretty idea of Finns waging "totally separate" just war only to take back what was theirs
form those bloody Russians who never change their low evil nature?



The only remarks of "propaganda", "paranoia" and "bloody Russians" at this thread are found at your post.
Please, let's try to stay civil here, OK?

Regards, Juha

P.S. http://heninen.net/ is a "Soviet" source

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4427
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 18 Dec 2005 06:45

batu wrote:It's interesting that the attack as portrayed acc. to this sourse seems like a victory, while in reality it was a defeat, and a main reason for the end of the Axis operations on Ladoga. Besides, what is "Defenders of Ladoga?" It's like Soviets would call themselves "Defenders of Viipuri" during the Winter war.



Batu,

In your favourite job here; giving hard time to finns ! :lol:

To me it was portrayed as a loss.

Why weren't they defenders of Ladoga. Ladoga ( Laatokka in finnish ) was a very important lake where Karelians got their living before brutal attack of the soviets in 1939 and as result of that invasion USSR claimed Laatokka and several finnish sacred grounds.

And as said before no finn took part in the SUHO attack. Suho was not in the finnish part of Laatokka so italians and germans were definitely attacking there soviets positions like Soviets were when attacking Viipuri.
I recall Laatokka was split 50/50 with USSR and Finland before WW II.

rgds,

Juke

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

Post by Hanski » 18 Dec 2005 08:44

batu wrote:... the fact that Finns participated in the war on Ladoga, and hence participated in the starving of the cilvilians in the beseiged city.

Batu, if you look at the map and for example the Finnish advance into Eastern Karelia http://personal.inet.fi/private/hovi.pa ... osota.html
as a proof of their operational capabilities in 1941, and if you acknowledge that Finns were not exactly amateurs in winter warfare (like Germans), are you seriously claiming that Finns were simply just unable to cut off the ice road to Leningrad, and that is the only reason why that lifeline was left open? If the siege and starvation of Leningrad had been an aim of the Finns like you suggest, surely there was no reason to leave it incomplete.

I recommend you familiarize yourself with the political side of Marshal Mannerheim's refusal to participate in the siege of Leningrad. He was a former Colonel of the Czar, and quite well understood what this would have meant to Russians, and he was a wise enough strategist to take that into account as the outcome of Operation Barbarossa was unseen yet. His decision was certainly no delight to Hitler and the Germans, but they accepted the Finnish idea of a separate war, and preferred to keep Finns on their side rather than to cause a major row about this.

Now, while you stay in Helsinki and have access to Finnish publications by walking into the nearest public library, why do you insist in using exclusively the politruk version of history writing as your source? I have not seen it myself yet, but for example the recently awarded Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen (= The Little Giant on the Continuation War) might be good value for money if you are looking for a source of reference based on contemporary research.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 18 Dec 2005 14:11

Hanski wrote:
batu wrote:... the fact that Finns participated in the war on Ladoga, and hence participated in the starving of the cilvilians in the beseiged city.

Batu, if you look at the map and for example the Finnish advance into Eastern Karelia http://personal.inet.fi/private/hovi.pa ... osota.html
as a proof of their operational capabilities in 1941, and if you acknowledge that Finns were not exactly amateurs in winter warfare (like Germans), are you seriously claiming that Finns were simply just unable to cut off the ice road to Leningrad, and that is the only reason why that lifeline was left open? If the siege and starvation of Leningrad had been an aim of the Finns like you suggest, surely there was no reason to leave it incomplete.

I recommend you familiarize yourself with the political side of Marshal Mannerheim's refusal to participate in the siege of Leningrad. He was a former Colonel of the Czar, and quite well understood what this would have meant to Russians, and he was a wise enough strategist to take that into account as the outcome of Operation Barbarossa was unseen yet. His decision was certainly no delight to Hitler and the Germans, but they accepted the Finnish idea of a separate war, and preferred to keep Finns on their side rather than to cause a major row about this.

Now, while you stay in Helsinki and have access to Finnish publications by walking into the nearest public library, why do you insist in using exclusively the politruk version of history writing as your source? I have not seen it myself yet, but for example the recently awarded Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen (= The Little Giant on the Continuation War) might be good value for money if you are looking for a source of reference based on contemporary research.


do you have any direct statements of Mannerheim saying that he refuses to participate in the seige of Leningrad, or saying that he had some feelings towards Leningrad, or saying not to cut off the supplies to the beseiged city?
Did Finns communicate directly to Germans their idea of "separate war"?
are there any statements of Ryti or Mannerheim form which it's clear that they depsised NAzism and Hitler?
Besides, who told you that Baryshnikov is politruk? Another attempt to bring "Soviet propaganda" here?
AFAIK He is a professor of history at Saint-Petersburg University.
Besides, I've just read about Helge Seppälä's book about Finnish army as occupant in Karelia. "Suomi miehittäjänä" I think. The article said that poor writer
was threatened and SUPO had to protect him fro mveterans and he even had to move to other place to live. Is that the way Finns address their history nowadays?
Sure I'll try to read other "acclaimed" books, but why wouldn't you read Baryshnikov"s one?
And Topspeed, yeah, it seems like nobody else would give Finns hard time here, so why not entertain yourself arguing with me, as long as it stays civilized as Juha proposed? :)
Axctually Topspeed posted similar post about Mannerheim leading a flotillia of Itlaian boats to interfere with the supplies
Mannerheim had refused to attack Leningrad via Carelian Straits, but let for instance Italian torpedoboats interefere convoys trying to reach Leningrad on Lake Ladoga.

viewtopic.php?t=85250

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4214
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 18 Dec 2005 17:14

Bair wrote:What were the Finnish losses in the operation? Russian view of the battle was that operation was a failure for joint Finnish-German-Italian force as the island remained under Soviet control.


Like Juha told there were no Finns except most likely some liaison officer who as far as I know survived. This operation I described was a success because the mission was accomplished (but not without losses). The intention was to destroy the facilities of Suho island, not to occupy it.

batu wrote:It's interesting that the attack as portrayed acc. to this sourse seems like a victory, while in reality it was a defeat, and a main reason for the end of the Axis operations on Ladoga. Besides, what is "Defenders of Ladoga?" It's like Soviets would call themselves "Defenders of Viipuri" during the Winter war.


I think it was "a victory" only in Soviet history. This attack or some "defeat" were not the reasons for endind the Axix operations on Lake Ladoga. "Sailing season" just ended because the lake froze soon after that. Finnish Supreme HQ didn't ask these forces to come and perhaps the results had not been sufficient. I think basically the reason was also that Soviet defences and naval forces on the southern Lake Ladoga were much stronger compared to Joint Naval Forces.

Why Finns could not call themselves as defenders of something which was their own? "Defenders of Lake Ladoga" refers to Lake Ladoga Coastal Brigade and its subordinated troops. Karelia as a name is neither a Soviet monopoly.

batu wrote:From the web-sources so far there is no direct mentioning of Finnish boats taking part in the atack, but hte info differs greatly in different sources.


I think the info does not differ very much because there is not much information available in the web.

batu wrote:I'll dig the Baryshnikov's book next week. The thing is that it's not only Russian view that it was joint Finno-Italian-GErman attack, I've read on the american site the same thing. I guess even if there were Finnish boats there their number would be minimal, since Finns had quite very little "Finnsih" fleet there.


You should rely more on the Finnish sources to get accurate and correct information. It does not matter if the source is "american" or not if it is not correct.

batu wrote:
Both Axis Ladoga-based flotillas were formally placed under the command of Finnish Ladoga Coastal Defense Brigade and were based in Lahdenpohja but acted under the commands of German Navy High Command.
IT seems that Finns did play part in the war on Ladoga, at least in terms of command and coordination of naval forces, besides all the Italians and German boats were stationed in Finnish ports and were transported around Finland. So, there was a substantional coordination if not direct command form Finnish side.


Naturally. They although had their own supply, own AA and air protection (in these Finns of course assisted). I don't know what is the source "Heninen" has used but as far as I know EFO was under the command of Luftflotte 1 because it was a Luftwaffe (anti-aircraft) unit. There were also German naval officers like the mentioned Korvettenkapitän von Ramm who acted as an Kommandant of EFO.

batu wrote:Finnish direct participation was limited by Finnish recourses. according to the below menitoned site, Finns had only one battleship "Susi" in Ladoga at the beginning of the war. So they contributed as they could to the common goal, and they provided harbours, routes, personell, command. And considering that the only objective of the existence of the Ladoga flotillia was to disrupt the supplies to the starving city, Finnish participation in it puts serious doubts at the claim that Mannerheim refused to participate in the seige of Leningrad.


A note: Susi = Wolf, Sisu = (about) Guts. Bismark and Gangut were battleships [taistelulaiva], Finns didn't have that sized vessels anywhere.

I can tell you that actually Finns had only one boat suitabe for any such attack operations on Lake Ladoga. That vessel was an old motor torpedo boat "Sisu" from the year 1918. It was armed with two 450 mm torpedoes. Other Finnish vessels were armed auxiliary vessels or boats of which some were although called gunboats. Majority of the Finnish vessels were motor boats armed typically with 7.62 or 12.7 mm MGs. They could not be used in any such operations against Soviet targets.

Are you again trying to give another view on Finnish partisipation and efforts on the war Lake Ladoga than is actually known? With the boats on Lake Ladoga Finns could well supply their troops there but attacking against heavily defended areas would have been equal to suicide. In short: Finns didn't partisipate in the siege of Leningrad, not on the Karelian Isthmus and neither on Lake Ladoga.

batu wrote:The below link also says that colonel järvinen was in charge of the naval forces.
Anyway, even if in the attack on Suho there were no Finnish boats, it doesn't disprove the fact that Finns participated in the war on Ladoga, and hence participated in the starving of the cilvilians in the beseiged city.
Start of operations
The commander of naval forces on Ladoga, colonel Järvinen, decided 14 August that the naval units were in condition and free to operate. The Italian boats started their patrols on immediately 14 August and on the night 14/15 August the three boats met three enemy Bira type gunboats and sunk one of them...


Colonel Järvinen was the Commander of Lake Ladoga Coastal Brigade and also the formal Commander of Naval Forces there. The situation was about the same as with the Finnish III Army Corps in the north which was under the German command but took orders and directives also from the Finnish Supreme HQ. On the joint forces on Lake Ladoga the largest one, EFO, was the most loosely under the command of Finns.

batu wrote:I'll dig Baryshnikov's book, there was more n Mannerheim and LEningrad there.
And one little note to Harri, I haven't used a single Soviet source so far, so your constant allegations of "soviet propaganda" sound quite paranoid to me.
as for: I
know rather well about the operations on Lake Ladoga because I have a book on these. It has been discusses in another thread that the arrival of these German and Italian forces came to a surprise to Finns. Eventually these forces were seen clearly too weak to achieve any results (like Finns had thought all the time). So, these attacks were not in the Finnish interests but they could not be forbade either.

sounds again apologetic. So Finns were "surprised" and it was agaisnt Finnish interests, but for some mysterious reason they provided these boats with harbours, routes, and actually commanded these forces. something doesn't fit here.


You really seem hard to understand and rely on anything. I have also noticed that you are not familiar with the background of the Joint Naval Forces, are you? Baryshnikov perhaps isn't the best available source in this case.

batu wrote:Maybe you're reading only those books that fit your preconceived pretty idea of Finns waging "totally separate" just war only to take back what was theirs form those bloody Russians who never change their low evil nature?


:roll: Is it that hard to accept that has been wrong? :|

I think this has nothing to do with the case in question.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4427
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 18 Dec 2005 18:43

batu wrote:Axctually Topspeed posted similar post about Mannerheim leading a flotillia of Itlaian boats to interfere with the supplies
Mannerheim had refused to attack Leningrad via Carelian Straits, but let for instance Italian torpedoboats interefere convoys trying to reach Leningrad on Lake Ladoga.

viewtopic.php?t=85250


No I did not..I said he did not tell them not to ! It is not the same thing.

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

Post by Hanski » 18 Dec 2005 20:37

batu wrote: do you have any direct statements of Mannerheim saying that he refuses to participate in the seige of Leningrad, or saying that he had some feelings towards Leningrad, or saying not to cut off the supplies to the beseiged city?

Let me translate what the History of the Continuation War (1989) states on the objectives on the Karelian Isthmus, which should clarify the issue:
The coming fate of Leningrad became a problem of the Finnish-German co-operation as the end of August approached. On 20 August, the acting liaison officer at the Finnish Supreme Headquarters, Infantry General W. Erfurth had visited the Supreme Commander and and told him about a letter to be expected from the Chief of the OKW, Field Marshal Keitel, requesting the Finns to attack Leningrad. Already at this stage Field Marshal Mannerheim presented to Erfurth those difficulties that Finns would have in breaching the strong line of defence of the Soviet troops, reinforced with permanent structures. However, the main reason to the negative stance was the reluctance of the High Command of the Army to advance to Leningrad, as well as the political aspect of the issue. The Finnish Lead of State had already earlier decided that Finns will under no circumstances aim their war operations against Leningrad and President Ryti was keen to supervise the compliance with this decree. Also statements opposing the crossing of the former national border emerged among the members of the Cabinet, especially its Social Democrat members. For military reasons, the President of the Republic and the Cabinet adapted to the view of Field Marshal Mannerheim about pushing the defence beyond the border.

At the arrival of Field Marshal Keitel's letter it became known that the Germans hoped for the Finns to participate in the conquest of Leningrad accompanied with an attack to the East of Lake Ladoga across the river Svir to reach contact with the German troops. Thereafter it was hoped the Finns will deploy a mobile detachment to the area South-East of Lake Ladoga for a safeguard mission.

After the letter had arrived, the Supreme Commander invited the President of the Republic to Mikkeli, to be able to sort out the problem and to prepare the Finnish reply to the presented proposal. The President visited the Supreme Headquarters on 24 August and after the discussions during this visit, Field Marshal Mannerheim sent his reply. It was polite, but negative.

On 31 August, Infantry General Erfurth repeatedly mediated the request of his superiors for the Finns to advance to Leningrad, while the attack to the South-East of Ladoga was dropped. The President of the Republic re-visited the Supreme Headquarters, and during the same day a negative reply was given. When informing the German OKW on this, Infantry General Erfurth mentioned the Finns rationalizing their refusal with their heavy casualties, war economic difficulties, and in general the strains already caused by the wars. He also stated that political reasons played a role for their part, because the leftist standpoint was that the old border should not at all be crossed. As his own appraisal Erfurth reported that there was no reason to expect the Finns to cross the river Svir either, unless contact with the Germans to the South of it could be made with no major operations.

The fast advance of the battle groups and the weakening resistance of the Soviet troops required a decision on what objectives were to be ordered to the troops. The order of attack by the Supreme Commander on 31 August on advancing beyond the former national border, but deployment in defensive positions to the South-East of it in front of the outermost permanently fortified line of defence of Leningrad, was a solution dictated by foreign policy.

The High Command wanted to keep the Finnish territory, as defined before the wars, outside the immediate operations of war, and to push the secured lines far enough front ahead of the old border. Also the zig-zagging border line especially for its southernmost part and at the Kirjasalo bend did not favour defence, but it would have required plenty of troops and offered the adversary advantageous opportunites for attack. The former border line did follow minor rivers and marshes with some tactical significance, but they had minor significance as a part of the whole. For the entirety it was important to choose the defensive position between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga to form a line as short as possible, thus also binding a minimal number of troops, while also politically acceptable.


Did Finns communicate directly to Germans their idea of "separate war"?

are there any statements of Ryti or Mannerheim form which it's clear that they depsised NAzism and Hitler?

Yes, and yes. That's why I suggest you should conduct some research of your own from Finnish sources, as we are obviously unable to provide you with the basics of everything.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 18 Dec 2005 22:17

Hanski,
thank you for the attempt to enlighten me with the basics :)
but the quote above doesn't say anything about the sentimental motives of Mannerheim not to push further to the attack of Leningrad.
The only motives publicly expressed by Mannreheim were military difficulty of such an attack:
Already at this stage Field Marshal Mannerheim presented to Erfurth those difficulties that Finns would have in breaching the strong line of defence of the Soviet troops, reinforced with permanent structures
.

However, the main reason to the negative stance was the reluctance of the High Command of the Army to advance to Leningrad, as well as the political aspect of the issue. The Finnish Lead of State had already earlier decided that Finns will under no circumstances aim their war operations against Leningrad and President Ryti was keen to supervise the compliance with this decree

I didn't get what is Lead of State and which decree would president Ryti supervise? Again, the murky "poitical reasons" emerge, but apart from the social-democrats' stance there is no mentioning of any other particular reason.
So, according to the History of Continuation War, Mannerheim refused to actively participate in the seige because (at least as it was officially anonunced to Germans) it was too difficult for Finnish military to attack such a fortifyed city.
This sounds totally normal, Mannerheim saving lives of his soldiers restrains from direct attack, and lets Germans do the job,
the fruits of wihch he would reap later. Paasikivi prepared speech to commemorate the coming fall of Leningrad,
Finns expected Germans to finnish off Lenignrad, while Finnish army would ocupy Eastern Karelia and create Greater Finland, uniting Finno-Ugric peoples living there. So, there is no evidence of Mannerheim "saving" Leningrad out of some personal feelings towards the city. He as everybody else expected it to be occupied by Germans and destroyed. With the German victory over Soviet Union Finland would get territories in the Karelia and part of former Leningrad untill the norhten bank of Neva.
But in durign the battle of Stalingrad MAnnerheim realized that NAzis would lose.

Paasikivi conveniently forgot the radio speech he had written in October 1941 where, quoting Dostoevsky, he surmised that Leningrad, the “window on Europe” opened by Tsar Peter the Great, would close as the Germans occupied it and that Russia’s political focus would shift towards the east and south, further from Europe. And no one brought up the fact that, in July 1941, Mannerheim had sworn that his sword would never be sheathed until Viena and Aunus (as the Northern and the Southern part of Russian Karelia were respectively called in Finnish) were free...

http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/ ... SAID=28271

AS for Mannerheim and Ryti's statements of despise towards Nazis, I don't think it's "basic" info. In fact it would be quite revealing, if soembody came up with the quote of Mannerheim or Ryti about Hitler or Nazism. So don't feel shy to give me this "basics". The same goes towards MAnnerheim-saviour of Leningrad. The above quote didn't add anything to prove that myth. Sure, we can say Mannerheim didn't take part in the direct storm of the city but his motives are far from being clear. And as the factual evidence suggests, they were mostly of military matter rather than humanitarian or personal-sentimental.
Besdies, what about the "Greater Finland" idea? Correct me if I am worng, but I guess that was the major propaganda of Finnish government before the Continuation war? Or was it just minor radical movement? What about Lapua movement, ryssän viha, Lotta Svärd?
I've read that IKL- the ultra-naitonalist party that had been in the parliament (though in minority) before continuation war was suddenly invited into the cabinet. This doesn't seem to conform the notion of Finnish government despising NAzis. Besides, Finland seemed to be quite pro-German even before the Winter war:
In 1937 a German submarine flotilla visited Helsinki, and it was greeted warmly by the people and by the government. In April and in May 1938, the Finnish government presided over two great celebrations, marking the twentieth anniversary of the entry of German troops into Helsinki and of the entry of Mannerheim's forces into Helsinki, respectively, events that numerous prominent Germans attended. The Finns were also indiscreet in allowing a German naval squadron to visit Helsinki. Soviet suspicions were fuelled again by the visit to Finland in June 1939 of the German army chief of staff, General Franz Halder, who was received by the government in Helsinki and who viewed Finnish army maneuvers on the Karelian Isthmus.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4579.html

besides, the below sourse mentions the cutting off of a branch of Murmansk railroad and actually it was visible on the map you provided. The road went from Murmanks to Leningrad. Finns didn't cut the other branch leading eastwards. This can be explained either by the American pressure not to cut lend-lease supplies. The US threatened to declare the war in this case. Besides, Soviets would defend that branch hard, since it was vital for the leand lease to reach USSR. But this wasn't directly related to the seige of Leningrad.
Finland's participation in the war brought major benefits to Germany. First, the Soviet fleet was blockaded in the Gulf of Finland, so that the Baltic was freed for training German submarine crews as well as for German shipping activities, especially the shipping of vital iron ore from northern Sweden and nickel from the Petsamo area. Second, the sixteen Finnish divisions tied down Soviet troops, put pressure on Leningrad, and cut one branch of the Murmansk Railroad. Third, Sweden was further isolated and was forced to comply with German wishes.
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4581.html
Last edited by batu on 18 Dec 2005 23:31, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Post by batu » 18 Dec 2005 22:37

Colonel Järvinen was the Commander of Lake Ladoga Coastal Brigade and also the formal Commander of Naval Forces there. The situation was about the same as with the Finnish III Army Corps in the north which was under the German command but took orders and directives also from the Finnish Supreme HQ. On the joint forces on Lake Ladoga the largest one, EFO, was the most loosely under the command of Finns.

another example of Finno-German joint comand and still "totally separate war"? :roll:

You really seem hard to understand and rely on anything. I have also noticed that you are not familiar with the background of the Joint Naval Forces, are you? Baryshnikov perhaps isn't the best available source in this case
.

that sounds like a personal remark. Did I call you stupid? No need to entertain that arrogant tone here. You've read one book and think you have monopoly on truth? For example, in your source the head of the operation was Korvettenkapitän von Ramm.
In the other sourse also based on a Finnish book
Lt.col. Wachtel is mentioned (though not clearly) as a person in charge. http://users.tkk.fi/~jaromaa/Navygaller ... Ladoga.htm
I don't remember exactly on which sourse does Baryshnikov rely, so I'll get hold of the book and see.
If his claim is a lie than let's call it a lie.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11469
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 18 Dec 2005 23:39

Gentlemen,

Let's consentrate here to the attack against Suho island.

Here's a thread about Finland's responsibility in the siege of Leningrad
viewtopic.php?t=18041&highlight

Here about What defines an Axis nation?
viewtopic.php?t=20709

Here Finland and Russia in general
viewtopic.php?t=10575&highlight

..and there are lots of more where the "larger scale politics" have better places for discussion.

Regards, Juha

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”