'Fire and Ice', PBS show on Russo-Finnish war [Archive]

TheRussian1

02-23-2006, 01:29 AM

I just got through watching this show on PBS, had no advanced warning and just happened to see it while channel surfing. This was an excellent show on the Russo-Finnish war. It had photos and films from the war, interviews with combatants, and excellent re-enactors in what appeared to be very authentic uniforms. The re-enactment scenes even featured very authentic looking T-26 tanks!

There were a lot of things I already knew about the war. I was aware of Finnish use of molitov cocktails and satchel charges against Soviet tanks, but I never knew some soldiers managed to disable tanks by stuffing logs in the treads or prying them off with cro-bars! I knew the Soviet commanders were generally inept in the war, but this show impressed on me just how sorry the state of the Soviet soldier really was. In some cases, Finnish machine gunners slaughtered so many Soviets in frontal assaults they nearly had mental breakdowns. And in one battle, a Soviet unit actually broke through the Finnish lines, but the attack stalled when the starving Russians smelled the sauges cooking in Finnish field kitchens. They stopped to devour the sausages and this gave the Finns time to regroup and counter-attack!

There are a lot of lessons from this war that it would do us all well to heed. It is amazing what a determined people can do when they decide they want their freedom badly enough. Surely this show will air again. It would certainly be worth your while to catch it if you are at all able.

this sounds like a lot of anti-Russian propoganda. Sure, the winter war went badly..but not on the scale you described.

chuckster

02-23-2006, 02:03 AM

Lazarou

02-23-2006, 02:19 AM

Haven't seen this show yet, does anyone know if I could download it from somewhere?

I knew the Soviet commanders were generally inept in the war, but this show impressed on me just how sorry the state of the Soviet soldier really was.

Why? They had everything they needed and even more, Finland had nothing.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5637/mallicajander9uv.jpg
Typical Finnish soldiers of that time.

Because of the lack of equipment many brought their own hunting rifles and wore their civilian clothing. Some of the troops could only be issued with a cockade for their fur hats. This new type of infantryman was called "Model Cajander" after the disliked prime minister Aimo Cajander whose government's defence budget cuts caused the lack of equipment.

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/7605/cajander1ye.jpg
Note: The "Model Cajander" soldier is on the background!

Actually, I think the Russian soldier deserves a great deal of respect.

As far as I know many of the "Russians" of the Winter War were actually Ukrainians, not Russians. Stalin was famous for his habit of using the Ukrainians as the Red Army's cannon fodder.

And in one battle, a Soviet unit actually broke through the Finnish lines, but the attack stalled when the starving Russians smelled the sauges cooking in Finnish field kitchens. They stopped to devour the sausages and this gave the Finns time to regroup and counter-attack!

Sounds like utter crap.

And I prefer the name Winter War, there have been billions of "Russo-Finnish Wars" over the centuries.

[end of rant]

chuckster

02-23-2006, 02:36 AM

Haven't seen this show yet, does anyone know if I could download it from somewhere?

Why? They had everything they needed and even more, Finland had nothing.

Not quite. 80% to 90% of the Soviet generals and colonels had recently been purged, thus a critical shortage of competent officers. The Soviets did not have winter snow camoflauge, the Finns did even if they had to cut up bedsheets to make it. The Soviets had rations mostly of black bread while the Finns had a high protein diet. Also, since this was the Finns home territory, most soldiers were able to bring whatever gear they needed to survive from home.

One more thing, there was still a Finland at the conclusion of the Russo-Finnish war. That is more than can be said of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Besserabia, and Poland.

TheRussian1

02-23-2006, 03:05 AM

I did not intend to degrade Russia by posting this. I don't think the Russo-Finnish war was so much a dis against the Russian soldier, but rather a dis against Stalin and the Soviet leadership at that time.

Actually, I think the Russian soldier deserves a great deal of respect. The Russian soldier has historically endured hardships and suffered losses that would bring any other nation to its knees, yet continued to fight on and usually ended up standing at war's end. As a result, Russia has not been conquered by any foreign power in the past several centuries. (Yes, the Germans knocked them out of WW I but that was because the Russians quit to focus their attention on their domestic political crisis.)

However, the Russians (or Soviets) have had deplorable leaders who showed no regard for the individual Russian soldier and needlessly expended hundreds of thousands of soldier's lives through sensless military tactics. This was especially true in the Russo Finnish war.

In my opinion, Russia has had very few good Czars, Premiers, or Presidents. It is my hope that someday Russia is able to get the kind of leadership the Russian people deserve and move to full democracy.

I wasn't accusing you of anything, sorry if my words carried that...
hopefully someday we will get good leadership, but so far we have had pretty ****ty luck with leaders. I am very interested whith our next presidential election, I don't see any good potential candidates.

The Winter war was a disgracefull event for the Soviet Union, I cannot deny that. One of my grandfathers fought in it; he was shellshocked ( heavy artilery landed very close to him apparently) but otherwise not harmed. Unfortunatly he passed away before I could talk on the subject with him.

Lazarou

02-23-2006, 03:20 AM

Not quite. 80% to 90% of the Soviet generals and colonels had recently been purged, thus a critical shortage of competent officers. The Soviets did not have winter snow camoflauge, the Finns did even if they had to cut up bedsheets to make it. The Soviets had rations mostly of black bread while the Finns had a high protein diet

You're right, the things you mentioned gave Finland a significant advantage.
But still, the Red Army had a huge technological and numerical advantage compared to their adversary. Regardless of high protein diets and bedsheets Finland was militarily nearly nonexistent compared to the might of the Soviet Union.

One more thing, there was still a Finland at the conclusion of the Russo-Finnish war. That is more than can be said of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Besserabia, and Poland.

Yes, although the war was of course a political defeat for Finland, it was theoretically a military victory - the Soviet Union didn't achieve its goal, it suffered huge losses and Finland remained free.

Randomrokottaja

02-23-2006, 04:39 AM

"Typical Finnish soldiers of that time."

Actually not that typical as is many times thought. That looking soldiers were actually minority and usually replacements brought in during the war, but a great stuff for finnish propaganda, as well as busting tanks with logs. Happened sometimes but not in as large scale as let known.

"And I prefer the name Winter War, there have been billions of "Russo-Finnish Wars" over the centuries."

Yes. Do not forget the wars of the past.

Caraway

02-23-2006, 07:16 AM

Sounds like utter crap. I don't think so. The "sausage battle" has been mentioned in different finnish Winter War history books also.

PeterG

02-23-2006, 07:22 AM

joka

02-23-2006, 09:14 AM

There's a trailer: http://www.mastersworkmedia.com/fireandice/trailer.htm

Hessian

02-23-2006, 09:51 PM

Haven't seen this show yet, does anyone know if I could download it from somewhere?

Why? They had everything they needed and even more, Finland had nothing.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5637/mallicajander9uv.jpg
Typical Finnish soldiers of that time.

Because of the lack of equipment many brought their own hunting rifles and wore their civilian clothing. Some of the troops could only be issued with a cockade for their fur hats. This new type of infantryman was called "Model Cajander" after the disliked prime minister Aimo Cajander whose government's defence budget cuts caused the lack of equipment.

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/7605/cajander1ye.jpg
Note: The "Model Cajander" soldier is on the background!

As far as I know many of the "Russians" of the Winter War were actually Ukrainians, not Russians. Stalin was famous for his habit of using the Ukrainians as the Red Army's cannon fodder.

Sounds like utter crap.

And I prefer the name Winter War, there have been billions of "Russo-Finnish Wars" over the centuries.

[end of rant]

"Utter crap"... sorry to say it might be true. When the Russians entered eastern Germany many incidents took place were Russian troops stalled attacks because they found large amounts of liquer. In one documented account a large liquer factory had its vast drums of booze mixed with poisen and many Russian soldiers who drank it died.

I think Stalin's results show that he used all peoples of the USSR as cannon fodder...

Kilgor

02-23-2006, 10:18 PM

Aparently Stalin did not trust soldiers from areas bordering near finland, so he got the concripts from far away parts of the country which co-incidently were not used to the freezing winter conditions.

The paranioa cost many men their lives.

The photos ive seen of the piles of russian corpses look little different to the photos of germans taken after the stalingrad pocket was destroyed.

StukaJr

02-23-2006, 11:03 PM

Must this thread become a collection of anti-Soviet WWII grandma tales?
Sources or it didn't happen - simple as that (I was refering to poisoned liquor cellars)

The Winter War was a disaster for the SU - both Logistical and Tactical. The RKKA was sent in without anticipating any resistence and most of the units were not even supplied with Winter Clothing. Soviets have also used many pieces of armor and equipment that were either unfit for the task or poorly designed - the terrain was in favor of the defense and fortifications proved too strong until 230mm howitzers were brought in for direct assault. The few (one?) Finnish counter attack to regain lost positions over the same terrain met the same faith.

After the first General was sacked, Timoshenko (?) was able to gain some success and achieve breakthroughs - however, hardly at justifyable costs... The only positive aspect I can see in the Winter War, was that the experience gained from the fighting saved many lives for RKKA soldiers years to come.

I have a good site in Russian that has chronological breakdown of the Winter War.

StukaJr

02-23-2006, 11:15 PM

Aparently Stalin did not trust soldiers from areas bordering near finland, so he got the concripts from far away parts of the country which co-incidently were not used to the freezing winter conditions.

That was a standard practice in the Soviet Union - sending the conscripts to serve in diffirent regions they were from. It worked if there was a need to put down a rebellion, insurection or simply because there is little to think about but serving when you are that far away from home.

The paranioa cost many men their lives.

Wouldn't call it Paranoia - Stalin was a cunning and calculating person, unlike the paranoid coward some may think. He divised a strategy that kept the multinational Soviet Union together by fueling old nationalistic feuds, taking land from one republic and giving it to another, moving whole towns of one ethnic people into another's territory. It worked, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union those areas were the first to become hotbeds of Civil Wars.

He was anything but paranoid.

Kilgor

02-23-2006, 11:17 PM

Come on.. the red army bascially lived on vodka like bullets and rations.

Soldiers of all countries looked alcohol stockpiles, but the Russians and their love for vodka just took it one step too far.. often.

Kilgor

02-23-2006, 11:30 PM

He was anything but paranoid.

It gets down to this,

A: he was not paranoid, and just used the excuse of plots, spies, trotsky, etc, to hunt down and murder or imprison anyone who became a threat.

B: he wad indeed paranoid.

Take your pick.

Hessian

02-24-2006, 12:18 AM

I provide NO Grandma' tales nor would I want to be part of anything that insults Russian's BUT I will present facts that are recorded and documented. I will continue to search for the book that contains the facts of Russian Soldiers who died by drinking spirits contaminated by the German Army with poison.

Here is one Russian documented fact, you will find in Anthony Beevor's work " Berlin- The downfall 1945 ;

The advancing troops of the 1st Belorussian Front did not just seize items that could be militarily useful. It was not long before the usual problem of looted alcohol arose in Soviet ranks. The capture of ‘several liquor-producing enterprises and depots’ had led to ‘many cases of drunkenness’. On 17 April, a battalion commander of the 102nd Guards Rifle Regiment and a Hero of the Soviet Union, ‘got very drunk, and could not conduct the battle. He lost his battalion.’ The commander of 35th Guards Rifle Division was reprimanded for not having taken the necessary measures to prevent an alcoholic binge. The situation was made worse when ‘some officers, instead of arresting the soldiers who were stealing and drinking, joined in’. Not surprisingly, they were ‘not in a state to fulfill their combat duties’. ‘several liquor-producing. . .’, TsAMO 233/2374/92 p.35

I would also say that many here like myself have family who fought the Russians in WWII and are also students of that conflict... and yes my Grandma was there.

StukaJr

02-24-2006, 12:25 AM

It gets down to this,

A: he was not paranoid, and just used the excuse of plots, spies, trotsky, etc, to hunt down and murder or imprison anyone who became a threat.

B: he wad indeed paranoid.

Take your pick.

I didn't know him personally but his actions suggest that he was cold and calculative. He wasn't a popular among the other Party leaders and was never liked - his cult could never have become as pumpous with Trotsky and other more likely successors to Lenin, other than himself. He rose in the ranks of the Communists during the Civil War - he was not known or well revered before the revolution - Stalin re-wrote history and had to eliminate anybody who knew the real him. He took control of the Party through clever manipulation and deceipt. Stalin have executed his personal friends and people whom knew him as a weakly Georgian street thug with a bum arm and poke scarred face. The Party nickname for Stalin was "Koba" or "Roach" - a better explanation for eliminating 2/3 of the "Old Guard" than simple paranoia. If you called yourself "Man of Steel" and your subordinates called you a roach - would elimination be not the obvious solution for a tyrant to be?
He devised a plan to industrialize and then rebuild Russia by using Political Prisoners for hard labor.
Stalin's actions bear cold and chilling explanations and theories - he was hardly mad, other than incredibly cruel.

Here is one Russian documented fact, you will find in Anthony Beevor's work " Berlin- The downfall 1945 ;

Beevor :) Well, at least he provided the source of the document so I'll see if I can look it up mentioned in my sources.

Batallion's commander going on the drinking binge is rather an isolated incident - plus the batallion was out of action because its CO was out on the town... I've initially read it as the entire batallion was on their stomachs, which isn't the case. The former could happen to any army - alcohol was the daily ration of just about any army, it helps the stress.

Happens all the time in "Band of Brothers" :)

I would also say that many here like myself have family who fought the Russians in WWII and are also students of that conflict... and yes my Grandma was there.

Any living relatives? Cherish their stories if they are still living. My grandfather went through the war without a scratch ('41-'45) but passed away before I was born - finished the War in Western Ukraine and from what I hear, really had 9 lives.

Kilgor

02-24-2006, 12:44 AM

Here is one Russian documented fact, you will find in Anthony Beevor's work " Berlin- The downfall 1945 ;

.

Oh no.. dont mention "him"...

Im ordering Writer at war - Vasily Grossman. It should be a interesting first hand account of the soviet trench life. Im sure the Russians on here will denouce it somehow though....

Kilgor

02-24-2006, 12:48 AM

Beevor :) Well, at least he provided the source of the document so I'll see if I can look it up mentioned in my sources.

.

Beevor actually references alot of soviet documents ... Especially about drunkardness and "extraordinary" events (rape)

Why not look some up, or is it something you'd rather not ?

TheRussian1

02-24-2006, 01:44 AM

Beevor actually references alot of soviet documents ... Especially about drunkardness and "extraordinary" events (rape)

Why not look some up, or is it something you'd rather not ?

nobody denies that soviet soldiers raped and looted...the same can be said of the allied forces, to a much less extent. But the red army had vengence on its mind, and I cannot blame the soldiers whoose entire families were shot or hung or mutilated in terrible ways by the occupying germans.

And Beevor is not the end all source on this...my grandfather was in the red army from 1942 onwards and he said although the troops did do a considerable amount of looting, their behavior was generally mil compared to what the western authors make of them.

Kilgor

02-24-2006, 02:12 AM

nobody denies that soviet soldiers raped and looted...the same can be said of the allied forces, to a much less extent. But the red army had vengence on its mind, and I cannot blame the soldiers whoose entire families were shot or hung or mutilated in terrible ways by the occupying germans.

.

Clearly your a exception on this board. The others will deny the mass/gang rapes outright.

The fact is after red army soldiers saw what had been done to their country and the intense levels of vengeful propaganda, the wave of revenge unleshed on germany was not hard to imagine.

Lokos

02-24-2006, 02:26 AM

Who denies the possibility of rapes/gang rapes? What I, personally, deny is the figure of 2 million rapes in Berlin. That gem was gleaned by Beevor from the 'educated' guess of a single German GP present in the city at the time. That you consider that guess to be gospel tells me all I need to know about your agenda.

Lazarou

02-24-2006, 02:49 AM

Actually not that typical as is many times thought. That looking soldiers were actually minority and usually replacements brought in during the war

The lack of equipment forced many (and most of the veterans I've talked to) to use their civilian clothing and other equipment they brought from home because of the shortage of equipment. The soldiers in the photo lack snowsuits, but otherwise they seem like most Finnish soldiers of the Winter War. As you can see some of them have standard issue equipment such as uniforms (sarkapuvut), and some don't.

The "sausage battle" has been mentioned in different finnish Winter War history books also.

Thanks for the info, is sounded too much like a fairytale at first glance.

StukaJr

02-24-2006, 04:34 AM

Beevor actually references alot of soviet documents ... Especially about drunkardness and "extraordinary" events (rape)

Why not look some up, or is it something you'd rather not ?

I own the Beevor's "The Fall of Berlin 1945" and the single quote of a German Doctor who claims that the whole Berlin was ripe with moans of raped Berliners or something to that account is not a worthy reference. There are no reference to Soviet Documentation of systematic rape of Berliners to the likes of Nanking - that's just pure BS.

I will repeat that Soviet High Command explisitely passed the decrees to not carry out retaliations against German Citizens - there are proofs of that. Did such retaliation and crimes happened? I'm certain as some people are that way regardless of their origin. Were there punishments carried out against the perpetrators? At least 5000 RKKA soldiers were prosecuted and the punishments did involve a number of symmary executions. Soviet High Command took steps of moving the armed personel out of the cities as soon as the situation allowed that as well...

Also, everybody knows what some chocholate or some parachute silk could gain you without resorting to force or violence in the first month of Liberation.

P.S. Hey, Lokos :)

P.P.S. Kilgor - thanks for highjacking the Winter War topic with Rape of Berlin RMM we've beaten to death months ago :) Do a search, so there is no repeating oneself.

Zero The Hero

02-24-2006, 07:05 AM

A question to the russians on the forum:
What have you been taught about the Winter War in school?
- Who started it?
- For what motives?
- How many died?
- Who won?
Of course, the history writing in biased on both sides of the border, but I tend to believe that the Soviet system was more inclined to bending the truth...

Lokos

02-24-2006, 07:54 AM

Zero The Hour:

Interesting you should ask. I, for example, am not a Russian or former Soviet citizen, so I was never taught anything at all about the Winter War. I'll tell you, though, what my - somewhat biased - view of the war has become, after a fair amount of research.

1) Who started it?

The Soviets escalated it to the point where a shooting conflict was inevitable. This is not a judgement on the Soviets, as such political plays were modus operandi at that time in modernity. They sought security for Leningrad through a healthy buffer zone, as well as control over a number of strategic points in and around Finland. This was not so much a measure against the Finns, but a preemptive move to block potential German invasion jump off points.

2) For what motives?

Look to above.

3) How many died?

71,214 KIA
16,292 died in hospital
39,369 MIA

= 126,875 irrecoverable losses

4) Who won?

There are a number of things that need to be pointed out, here.

The first is that it is a Finnish myth that the Soviets had overwhelming numerical superiority at the onset of the war. They massed 200,000 men for the invasion, whilst the Finns mustered 130,000. This was not an ideal correlation of forces. It is a commonly held military maxim that a force superiority of 3:1 should be achieved when on the offensive. This, as much as anything else, damaged the Soviet offensive potential.

The second major mistake on the part of the Soviet leadership was to draw upon formations from the black soil regions of the Ukraine for the bulk of the invasion forces. Not only were the Ukrainians unused to the temperatures in Finland, they were also untrained for it, and illequipped.

The third major mistake on the part of the Soviet leadership was beginning the war in 1939, whilst the Red Army was still in the throes of the Purges. More than 80% of the senior officer corps had become victims, and replacements were not adequately trained or experienced enough for the tasks assigned to them.

The fourth major mistake was the failure to ensure a fluid logistical situation. Lack of basic supplies and equipment severely hampered Soviet forces throughout the campaign - even well into its terminal stages.

The fifth, and perhaps most important, mistake has a lot to do with the second. Most of the Soviet troops employed during the Winter War were led by men who did not have the practical skills needed, and were in turn terribly trained when it came to basics such as: a) combined arms b) co-ordination c) reconnaissance d) effective application of artillery forces e) attacking fixed defences etc.

Another unfortunate factor was that the weather during the Winter War was horrific. It was one of the three worst winters in recorded Finnish history.

DESPITE THIS:

The Soviets won the war.

By February 1940, reorganized, reinforced, re-quipped and competently led Soviet forces broke through the Mannerheim Line and were advancing upon significant Finnish population centres. The Finns had an exhausted, smashed army that could no longer effectively resist. Only the threat of Allied intervention kept the Soviets from outright rejecting the 5 March terms offered by the Finns, and led them to accept them on 12 March.

For their efforts, the Soviets were awarded with significant territories.

On the other hand, some would say that Finland won it based on the fact that their nation managed to stay in existence. I find this to be an unconvincing argument. The military situation, on the ground, in March 1940 was firmly in the favour of the Soviets. The peace deal saw them gain territory. A limited victory, perhaps, but a victory nonetheless.

Lokos

Zero The Hero

02-24-2006, 09:01 AM

Might as well state my own view on the questions I asked:

1) Who started it?
I find that the seeds of the war were planted in the hour of the bolshevik revolution in 1917-18 when Lenin granted Finland independence. By doing this, Lenin hoped to avoid more rebellion in the rebellion ridden country, hoping that Finland would later opt for communism and remerge voluntarily. This having not happened, Finland became something of a thorn in the Soviet flesh. Towards the end of the 30's, war seemed inevitable, and fortification works for the Mannerheim line began in the Karelian isthmus. Once Molotov signed the nonaggression pact with Germany, the attack was only a question of time. In order to ease the assault, Finland was proposed a trade in territories. Finland was to cede parts of the Karelian isthmus for territories in northern Finland. This was an impossible offer as the new built fortifications were located in the requested areas. This would have hampered the defence arrangements totally in excahnge for territories of little use. Thus the Russian artillery was ordered to fire upon their own troops in Mainila on November 30st 1939. The shots were claimed to have been shot from the Finnish side of the border, and considered as aggression, thus launching a full scale attack all along the border.

2) Stalins motive was basically to consolidate his gains granted to him in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pcat.

3) According to the study, Soviet casualties and combat losses in the 20th century, it's impossible to establish an accurate number of the soviet casualties of the Winter War, but the Russian study group suggests that the number of MIA or KIA would be around 200 000-300 000 and WIA roughly 280 000. Finnish casualties amounted to some 22 800 KIA. Hence the patriotic saying: "1 Finn equals 10 Russians."

4) In terms of military operational thinking, Finland won as it succeeded in holding it's key areas and maintaining it's operational capability (AKA independence) in the end. SU, on the other hand, failed to reach it's objectives although achieving significant territorial gains. Politically, Finland did suffer from harsh peace terms and was in a poor bargaining position.

The point about force correlations is not exactly as simple as Lokos suggested. The advantage is on the side of the attacker who has the opportunity to decide where the battle is fought and therefore muster his forces into that specific area. The defender on the other hand is forced to spread his forces on the entire front. Because of this, it was not uncommon that the local odds were 5:1 or even 10:1. Also, the force relations in the beginning do not carry on through out the war.

Lokos

02-24-2006, 11:21 AM

3) According to the study, Soviet casualties and combat losses in the 20th century, it's impossible to establish an accurate number of the soviet casualties of the Winter War, but the Russian study group suggests that the number of MIA or KIA would be around 200 000-300 000 and WIA roughly 280 000. Finnish casualties amounted to some 22 800 KIA. Hence the patriotic saying: "1 Finn equals 10 Russians."

Rubbish.

The only authority on Soviet combat losses in the 20th century is G. F. Krivosheev. The numbers I posted are accepted by all reputable historians. The ones you suggest are those put forward by interest groups with agendas that destroy their credibility, seeing as their methods of data collation are more than simply 'questionable'.

I find that the seeds of the war were planted in the hour of the bolshevik revolution in 1917-18 when Lenin granted Finland independence.

O-kay...

4) In terms of military operational thinking, Finland won as it succeeded in holding it's key areas and maintaining it's operational capability (AKA independence) in the end.

How is that 'in terms of military operational thinking'? In terms of military analysis, the Finns lost the war, hands down. The breach of the Mannerheim Line, the complete Soviet manpower, armour, artillery and aerial superiority, as well as a deteriorating Finnish supply situation and a disastrous lack of replacements for combat losses meant that the Soviets could have completely destroyed Finland, was that found to be advantageous in the overall scheme of things. Stalin, however, received intelligence that the WA were planning an intervention. This was not something he could afford, so he accepted the 5 March Finnish peace offer.

I have already laid out why you would think this (as stipulated by yourself) way, and why it is a flawed way of thinking in any military sense.

***

Why did you even ask your questions? It seems to me that all you wished to do was push the Finnish nationalist agenda that I have seen time and again when it comes to the Winter War, as opposed to actually considering what anyone with an opposing view might have to say vis a vis this issue. And as for that 'patriotic' saying of yours, why don't you ask the Finns who lived through the terminal phase of the Continuation War what they thought of it?

Lokos

Caraway

02-24-2006, 11:54 AM

California Joe

02-24-2006, 01:31 PM

Hahahaha, f*ckin' Lokos. Couldn't stay away huh.p-)

If I ever want to lure you back in here I'll just start another Eastern Front thread......
"Russian troops wore womens panties at Stalingrad"
"Hermaphrodite snipers stall Nazi advance"
"T-34 based on a Studebaker design"

You know, you may be some mental case that completely makes up stuff and when I read your posts I'd probably still believe you.:)

Jippo

02-24-2006, 02:45 PM

The few (one?) Finnish counter attack to regain lost positions over the same terrain met the same faith.

Many succesful attacks on both sides. Just less losses on the Finnish side.

-jippo

StukaJr

02-24-2006, 02:49 PM

Thor

02-24-2006, 02:49 PM

The Soviets escalated it to the point where a shooting conflict was inevitable. This is not a judgement on the Soviets, as such political plays were modus operandi at that time in modernity. They sought security for Leningrad through a healthy buffer zone, as well as control over a number of strategic points in and around Finland.
Utter BS. That statement was modified some time after the conflict started. Stalin wanted to re-establish the borders that were lost in 1917.

It was an all-out attack on Finland. From the north to the south and the soviets had since long planned for a puppy regime to take over once they had re-occupied Finland.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Winter-War-Overview.png/180px-Winter-War-Overview.png

3) How many died?

71,214 KIA
16,292 died in hospital
39,369 MIA

= 126,875 irrecoverable losses
Again BS and Soviet Propaganda. Chrustchev himself mentioned a million losses in his book but all other trusted historians talk about 200,000-500,000 soviet casualties.

4) Who won?
There are a number of things that need to be pointed out, here.

The first is that it is a Finnish myth that the Soviets had overwhelming numerical superiority at the onset of the war.
BS, once again Soviet Pravda reports.

The Soviets won the war.
Finland accepted a peace treaty after a soviet million man onslaught on a nation of some three million citizens. In return the soviets got very little land, barely enough to bury their dead.

The soviets showed to be inept fighters. The finns showed to be superb fighters (just like they have throughout history). The determination of each individual was a crucial factor in war. Soviet Union is now long gone. Finland is around, and prosperous.

Jippo

02-24-2006, 02:58 PM

Rubbish.

The only authority on Soviet combat losses in the 20th century is G. F. Krivosheev.

Come on! There are plenty of researchers going to Russian war archives these days, in fact they have been doing this for more than ten years now. Do you think that only one researcher can read?

Stalin, however, received intelligence that the WA were planning an intervention. This was not something he could afford, so he accepted the 5 March Finnish peace offer.

Western Allies never did and never could give any help that would have made any difference. France and Britain offered 6000 troops to aid Finland.

But you are right about Stalin, he couldn't afford to take Finland.

Also SU lost: they had planned to invade Finland in a time period of couple of weeks, and they clearly couldn't reach their objective.
And as for that 'patriotic' saying of yours, why don't you ask the Finns who lived through the terminal phase of the Continuation War what they thought of it?

What would you know about it.

The most important fact remains: Soviets couldn't invade in 39-40, and they couldn't do it in 1944 either.

-jippo

Jippo

02-24-2006, 03:04 PM

I don't believe that Stalin wanted Finnland, per se - not sure if the Russians did either... So first - it were the Soviets, SU or RKKA - not Russians. Second, the Conflict escalated after Stalin could not get the strip of the Finnish land that he felt was too close to Leningrad - I'm not discussing the moral or political obligations, simply stating that at no point it is proven that the entire of Finnland was to be occupied.

There are now published plans by Soviet high command for the invasion of Finland. They were recovered during Raate Road battles and contained plans for the invasion.

The division(s) destroyed in Raate were headed for Oulu in the west coast, and they had even the band for the victory parade with them.

-jippo

Kilgor

02-24-2006, 05:25 PM

The first is that it is a Finnish myth that the Soviets had overwhelming numerical superiority at the onset of the war. They massed 200,000 men for the invasion, whilst the Finns mustered 130,000. This was not an ideal correlation of forces. It is a commonly held military maxim that a force superiority of 3:1 should be achieved when on the offensive. This, as much as anything else, damaged the Soviet offensive potential.

I have seen figures regularly that is much much higher than this. And considering the absolute slaughter of the Russians, it makes common sense.
At least 400,000 for the invasion and the final push was over a million. The soviets could only take finnish terrority by completely swamping them with men and artillery.

Maybe in a past life you worked for Pravada lokos, but there is no other way to describe it, Finland was a distaster and humiliation for the soviets. It showed the incompetant fighting ability of the post purged red army and only confirmed hitlers view that the SU was ripe for plunder.

Again BS and Soviet Propaganda. Chrustchev himself mentioned a million losses in his book but all other trusted historians talk about 200,000-500,000 soviet casualties.

I have heard of this too. Im going to have a look to see if I can find where he spoke of the true losses for the Finnish campaign.

Jani.R

02-24-2006, 05:41 PM

I have been digging up info from my books and it tells me that at the start of the war Russians in the bordes with Finland had :

23 divisions with :

400,000 soldiers.

1915 artillery pieces. (mortars not counted)

1500 tanks.

and 1590 planes.

And eastern-sea& southern sea fleets combined ammount of 487 planes.

And inside december, Russians brought 4 more divisions to the leningrad front that made the division count to 29. (then there was the kansanarmeija with 15k soldiers, mostly from russian-karjalans and immigrant finns)

StukaJr

02-24-2006, 05:53 PM

Here are the losses from the Winter War, as compiled by Krivosheyev. All others are estimates and can't be trusted - Kruschev and others were pulling numbers out of thin air and those numbers inflated as the years went by. I believe the last number neared a million.

http://www.winterwar.com/War'sEnd/casualti.htm#soviet

Total losses:

The above table data gives a total death count of 126,875. Krivosheev's study came up with the figure of 264,908 wounded (not including the cases of sickness), thus giving the total number 391 783 Soviet casualties.

Finnish losses total at 26,662 men

http://www.winterwar.com/War'sEnd/casualti.htm#finnish

For data of the opposing forces, go to:

http://www.winterwar.com/Numbers.htm

Lazarou

02-24-2006, 08:33 PM

They sought security for Leningrad through a healthy buffer zone

It's amusing how Russia first occupied the coastal area from Ingrian Finns so they could build St.Petersburg/Leningrad and a few centuries later claimed that this same area was now threatened by Finns. Oh the irony...

The official reason of the attack according to Soviet propaganda was to free Finland from "bourgeois oppression", in other words to destroy Finland politically, militarily and ethnically and annex it into the Soviet Union. The "threat to Leningrad" crap was created later when they needed a better explanation to justify the war.
Germany and the Soviet Union were still allies back in 1939 and had devided Europe into their own spheres of influence by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact a few months before the war. Finland was not allied with anyone, it had signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR in 1932 and its military strenght was nearly nonexistent compared to the Soviet Union. So how was a tiny non-aligned Nordic country and its poorly equipped reservist army of 180 000 farmers and lumberjacks a threat to Leningrad?

The Winter War was one of the greatest military ****-ups of the 20th century. Suck it up and move on.

chuckster

02-24-2006, 08:44 PM

The Winter War was one of the greatest military ****-ups of the 20th century. Suck it up and move on.

With the exception of the use of the 'F' word, what he said!

Russia vs. Finland is like putting a flyweight in the ring with a heavyweight. While the Russians may have won on points, They had a couple of black eyes when they woke up the next morning.

Zero The Hero

02-24-2006, 09:33 PM

Lokos:
What I meant by "military operational thinking" is as follows.
In engaging a military operation, both sides set an objective. For the Soviets it was the complete occupation and annexation of Finland. For the Finns it was stopping the attack and maintaining independence. Which side was more succesfull when the peace treaty was signed? Comparing military strength in the end isn't an any kind of an indicator of a victory. If that had any validity, you could claim that the US was the undisputed victor of the Vietnam War.

Anyway, nevermind who won in 1940. We carried the day in hockey!

TheRussian1

02-24-2006, 09:41 PM

Anyway, nevermind who won in 1940. We carried the day in hockey!

you had better win in the finals

and the winter was not the graeatest ****up..evidenly you have never heard of the Italian army in ww2. That was the greatest **** up.

Kilgor

02-24-2006, 10:17 PM

you had better win in the finals

and the winter was not the graeatest ****up..evidenly you have never heard of the Italian army in ww2. That was the greatest **** up.

The italian fighting man had little desire to fight the duce's war of conquests and were more than happy to give up. At least their behaviour was quite good, earning the nick name "gentlemen" from the brits in africa.

Limeyfellow

02-24-2006, 11:25 PM

this sounds like a lot of anti-Russian propoganda. Sure, the winter war went badly..but not on the scale you described.

Why we see Russia won the war through its massively superior numbers to overwhelm and cause the Finnish surrender it was no easy time.

Lets see. The death totals in the war.

Soviet Deaths: 28000. Finnish Deaths: 800.

And what did the Soviets get? 10% of Finland and 20% of the economical base.

The only good thing it did was finally forced Stalin to put some proper generals incharged of the military who knew what they were doing.

Jani.R

02-24-2006, 11:48 PM

Why we see Russia won the war through its massively superior numbers to overwhelm and cause the Finnish surrender it was no easy time.

Lets see. The death totals in the war.

Soviet Deaths: 28000. Finnish Deaths: 800.

And what did the Soviets get? 10% of Finland and 20% of the economical base.

The only good thing it did was finally forced Stalin to put some proper generals incharged of the military who knew what they were doing.

Have you even bothered to read the thread, or are you simply trolling?

TheRussian1

02-25-2006, 01:14 AM

The italian fighting man had little desire to fight the duce's war of conquests and were more than happy to give up. At least their behaviour was quite good, earning the nick name "gentlemen" from the brits in africa.

o, really. they were not so nice to the albanians and greeks and ethiopians. Ha, Italian gentlemen.

Lokos

02-25-2006, 04:31 AM

If compared to the Baltic nations, Finland is the winner. No russians occupied Finland. No soviet/communistic system was brought in here. Finland was not ruined as were the Baltic nations. The flame of freedom was kept alive in Finland, despite the russians' efforts to kill it.

I see the flame of melodrama is also alive and well, in Finland.

Hahahaha, f*ckin' Lokos. Couldn't stay away huh.

CJ, who could stay away from you? p-)

If I ever want to lure you back in here I'll just start another Eastern Front thread......
"Russian troops wore womens panties at Stalingrad"
"Hermaphrodite snipers stall Nazi advance"
"T-34 based on a Studebaker design"

Damned straight!

:D

Again BS and Soviet Propaganda. Chrustchev himself mentioned a million losses in his book but all other trusted historians talk about 200,000-500,000 soviet casualties.

Do you know what a 'casualty' is? I shall now inform you, in any case. A casualty is a soldier who has been rendered ineffective through liquidation (terminal death), wounding (of any degree) or becoming unaccountable for (going MIA). By this criteria, the Soviet casualties were, indeed, higher than ~126,000 - which were the fatalities and the MIAs, alone.

Who are these 'trusted historians' of yours? Name a few. I am familiar with the works of roughly 85-90% of Eastern Front/Soviet military historians. Or are these the same 'trusted historians' you couldn't name, last time we had this discussion?

Nikita Khrushchev was participating in a campaign to destroy Stalin as a political force and cult figure, following his passing. Part of this strategy included exaggerating everything that ever went wrong in the Soviet Union's early history, and putting the responsibility for it squarely on Stalin's shoulders. G. F. Krivosheev did not work from a political standpoint. His examination of combat casualties was based solely on army loss reports. He does not 'estimate'.

But, I know one thing for certain: Khrushchev's guesstimate works better for you because it is higher than the one I suggest, and the one that the world has accepted. You do not believe this out of a desire for the truth, but out of a desire to in turn believe that greater numbers of Soviets died. I know you, personally, to be a filthy racist. This xenophobia is your sole motivation in engaging this issue, and it disgusts me. Therefore, you disgust me. Either present facts (from documented sources) or leave this thread, forever.

It was an all-out attack on Finland. From the north to the south and the soviets had since long planned for a puppy regime to take over once they had re-occupied Finland.

A vast oversimplification of a largely opportunistic Soviet strategy, and one unfounded on the facts.

BS, once again Soviet Pravda reports.

LOL.

Is that so?

Okay, why don't you lay out Army-by-Army strength reports on the eve of the invasion, I'll do the same, and we'll compare? Keep in mind, I'm talking about the fighting for the Karelian Isthmus, where the decision was expected, not fighting in Lapland or Petsamo...

Oh, let me guess. You'll conveniently forget I wrote this. Or dismiss it with some facetious remark about how brainwashed by propaganda I am.

The soviets showed to be inept fighters.

LOL. You're a classic. Are these sorts of statements supposed to make me take you seriously, you Far Northern joke of a man child?

Come on! There are plenty of researchers going to Russian war archives these days, in fact they have been doing this for more than ten years now. Do you think that only one researcher can read?

Krivosheev is the only authority on the subject. His method of collating casualties is in line with German methods of collating theirs. The only matter of uncertainty are some figures for 1941. I do not see what you are contending, to be honest. Of course there are other researchers undertaking studies of a similar nature. None have proven to be more thorough, more exacting and more consistent than Krivosheev. I'd love to see who you have in mind, though.

Western Allies never did and never could give any help that would have made any difference. France and Britain offered 6000 troops to aid Finland.

But you are right about Stalin, he couldn't afford to take Finland.

1) Stalin didn't know the state of the alleged WA intervention forces, but he knew that there was a threat of this intervention taking place. That is all that mattered.

2) The Soviet Union, in March 1940, could have flattened Finland. I'm sorry, but that's the way of it, and no amount of Finnish patriotism will change that.

What would you know about it.

The most important fact remains: Soviets couldn't invade in 39-40, and they couldn't do it in 1944 either.

And yet Finland acquiesced on both accounts. Perhaps the Finnish leadership of the time understood something you apparently fail to.

I have seen figures regularly that is much much higher than this.

Where? Why do you people throw numbers at me without saying where they're from?

The soviets could only take finnish terrority by completely swamping them with men and artillery.

If that makes you feel better, and lets you sleep at night, believe it all you want.

It showed the incompetant fighting ability of the post purged red army and only confirmed hitlers view that the SU was ripe for plunder.

Let's get this very, very straight:

The elements of the Red Army participating in the Winter War in 1939 were not of the same ilk as those participating in the fighting from January onwards. To equate the two is at best merely disingenious. At worst, it is outright self delusion. Whilst I have already stated that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Red Army was unready for the conflict in 1939, in 1940 their deficiencies were largely compensated for and corrected.

I have heard of this too. Im going to have a look to see if I can find where he spoke of the true losses for the Finnish campaign.

While you're at it, why don't you see where he got his information from. I surely hope it isn't a lone GP in Leningrad. 'Cause that would be very Beevoresque of him.

I have been digging up info from my books and it tells me that at the start of the war Russians in the bordes with Finland had :

...

That's just not honest of you.

Why don't you put forth numbers for the Soviet assault on the Karelian Isthmus? You know, the main and deciding theater of war? My information says 200,000 Soviets + 900 guns against 130,000 Finns. What does yours say?

Source: Carl Van Dyke - The Soviet Invasion of Finland, 1939-1940

Read over what I said again: 'The Soviets mustered around 200,000 men for the invasion, whilst the Finns mustered 130,000'.

Since overall Finnish strength was 180,000, I obviously wasn't talking about the whole front, now was I?

I'm sorry if it wasn't immediately clear.

It's amusing how Russia first occupied the coastal area from Ingrian Finns so they could build St.Petersburg/Leningrad and a few centuries later claimed that this same area was now threatened by Finns. Oh the irony...

This is tangential to the discussion.

The official reason of the attack according to Soviet propaganda was to free Finland from "bourgeois oppression", in other words to destroy Finland politically, militarily and ethnically and annex it into the Soviet Union.

I like that word... 'Official'... It connotates a lot.

The Winter War was one of the greatest military ****-ups of the 20th century. Suck it up and move on.

I don't think I denied this. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that the Soviets were in war-winning position by March 1940.

Comparing military strength in the end isn't an any kind of an indicator of a victory. If that had any validity, you could claim that the US was the undisputed victor of the Vietnam War.

Politically, certainly, the Soviets lost the war. Militarily, they were in the superior position at its conclusion. To me, that does not signal defeat. Nor does the Finnish loss of territory and strategic resources to the Soviets.

Lokos

Snoshi

02-25-2006, 06:53 AM

It doesent really matter. this war was a **** up for SU, but Finland cant deniy that they lost, losing a Karelia and 2nd largest city is losing

Randomrokottaja

02-25-2006, 07:43 AM

"but Finland cant deniy that they lost, losing a Karelia and 2nd largest city is losing"

Around the negotation board, not in _war or combat_.

Despite hard trying, the 2nd largest city Viipuri was never captured by the soviets in winter war. It was _given_ to them after the war and negotiations.

Lokos

02-25-2006, 09:01 AM

Elmo

02-25-2006, 09:55 AM

Randomrokotajja:

Finland didn't give up so much territory out of the goodness of its heart. It was on the ropes. That the Soviets didn't bother to finish the job - or that they were in fact worried about wider reprecussions if they did - doesn't change the fact that, militarily, Finland was finished.

And the attack on Viipuri began on 29 February, the very same day the Finnish government decided to begin negotiating.

Lokos

Well, there are sources and then there are more sources. Heikki Ylikangas has researched the subject and he says Hermann Goering gave his word to a Finnish contact in Berlin, Kivimäki, that the Finns should yield now, and later everything would be compensated. This happened in Feb 22.

This launched a political operation behind the scenes, because peace had to be explained to the people: every group in the parliament had to agree on giving in and the scapegoat would be the west, who left Finland isolated. Or that would be said over and over again.

On Feb 28 Finnish High Command had a meeting and there 9 out of ten generals told Mannerheim that we can hold our ground. Mannerheim knew something was going on (although he wasn't told about Göring) and persuaded the High Command to change their mind.

Why did göring promise such a thing? Well, the Baltic Sea was frozen and had Western Powers deployed troops in Scandinavia, Germany would only have had Luftwaffe to encounter them. They got scared. Hitler had given an order to make plans for invasion of Denmark and Norway around Feb 20.

So, what is the truth about March 1940? Who knows for sure, but at that time Mannerheim still wanted to ask West for help, as things didn't look like it would be wise to give in. According to Ylikangas, Foreign Minister Tanner must have told everything about the Göring promise at that time.

joka

02-25-2006, 10:32 AM

The way I see it is that Finland did very well, amazingly even, considering the odds, but in the end had to cave in under overwhelming numbers.

Peace had to be made, because eventually, at some point, be it a week or a year, the Soviets would have broken through with sheer mass.

Randomrokottaja

02-25-2006, 10:42 AM

Lokos

02-25-2006, 11:02 AM

This happened in Feb 22.

Yet the decision to begin negotiating only happened on 29 February 1940, the very day of the beginning of the Viipuri assault.

On Feb 28 Finnish High Command had a meeting and there 9 out of ten generals told Mannerheim that we can hold our ground.

Where did they think they could hold their ground? The 'invincible' Mannerheim Line was breached. With what ammo, exactly, were they going to be resisting? With replacement troops from... where?

militarily, Finland was finished"

According soviet propaganda and russian pravda.

Whatever. Believe what you will. That the Finnish Army was going to be shooting bullets made of air somewhere around mid-March/early-April seems to have no bearing on your thought process. That the Soviet formations involved were gaining in strength, whilst their Finnish counterparts were in steep decline, also seems to have little significance for you.

Lokos

Taekwondo

02-25-2006, 11:03 AM

Lokos,
I agree with you in the main ideas, but the invasion of Finland was a political loss too, if we see what happened:

-Finland was effectively pushed to Germany, soon being used as a staging area for operation Barbarossa. Before the war Germany and especially Hitler were unpopular in Finland and the country was Britain-oriented
-the propaganda claim of a security zone for Leningrad didn't hold out after being invented, as Finnish troops reclaimed the area in a short time anyway during the summer of 1941 (the claim was invented to keep troop morale good, as they were already complaining that the Finns didn't want to be liberated but fought against the liberation)
-USSR got an enthusiastic enemy into an important area, which took a lot of troops and resources from other areas
-the soviet foreign policy got a bad image as the war was marketed as the liberation of Finland
-the soviet deal with the so called Peoples Democratic Republic of Finland was a very bad political blunder, probably the worst

so in retrospect the political victory was at the best a Pyrrhic victory

The composition of the so called peoples' army of Finland was mainly native Soviets, not emigrants or Karelians. There wasn't 15000 of them, but more like a regiment. This is for the one who mentioned the army.

Taekwondo

02-25-2006, 11:05 AM

Yet the decision to begin negotiating only happened on 29 February 1940, the very day of the beginning of the Viipuri assault.

Where did they think they could hold their ground? The 'invincible' Mannerheim Line was breached. With what ammo, exactly, were they going to be resisting? With replacement troops from... where?

Lokos

From north, and from the allied expeditionary forces that would have been sent if help had been asked (of course Finns didn't know the full story of the plan).

The mannerheim line was far from invincible, it was dubbed so by the soviet propaganda machine.

Here's a good photo of the "Maginot line of the north"
http://www.mannerheim.fi/valokuva/10/mlinja.gif

Lokos

02-25-2006, 11:12 AM

Randomrokottaja

02-25-2006, 11:12 AM

"Whatever. Believe what you will."

I just face the facts. What has happened, has happened. Not the style, if aunt had balls, she would be uncle.

"That the Finnish Army was going to be shooting bullets made of air somewhere around mid-March/early-April"

Make every shot count and take more from russians. Heh.

Lokos

02-25-2006, 11:26 AM

"Whatever. Believe what you will."

I just face the facts. What has happened, has happened.

Did the Finns not give up territory in your version of what happened?

Make every shot count and take more from russians. Heh.

Oh bra-vo. You win this debate, hands down. Yes, of course, an entire WW2-era army was going to operate at full capacity and offer credible resistance by 'making every shot count' and 'taking more from the Russians'. Definitely, a plausible strategy. I laud your insight and boundless wisdom.

Lokos

Taekwondo

02-25-2006, 12:14 PM

You realise that I put these babies ' + ' at the beginning and the end of invincible for a reason, yes? Regardless of how effective the Mannerheim Line was, it certainly fulfilled the role of the Main Life of Defence for the Finnish Army. Once it was breached, there were no major secondary defensive positions to hold a Soviet assault in perpetuity. And there wasn't an infinite space to retreat to.

Which northern troops? The ones engaged in heavy combat with Soviet forces already? The ones that would have to transverse all of Finland to get to the main theater of the war?

And once this hypothetical reservoir of men was gone?

Lokos

Of course I realize! Some people don't and a few even have taken the claims of invincibility for real. Just making a point.

There were secondary defensive positions all the way to Viipuri, not as much built but they were there.

The northern troops were not engaged with any serious action in spring 1940, as the Soviet attacks had been halted and they had dug in in defense. In Lapland the Swedish volunteers were holding the line. In Laatokan Karjala (the northwest area of the Lake Ladoga) the soviets had been stalled at Kollaa for months. The troops could have come from a lot of places, even from the interior of Finland.

And if the lines of defense had been completely devastated the Finns would have reverted to guerrilla war. In june 1941 the Germans would have probably counted on the Finnish resistance for support and used Finland as an attack route to Leningrad. So even the breakage of the lines would have not ended the war.

Randomrokottaja

02-25-2006, 12:17 PM

Did the Finns not give up territory in your version of what happened?

Oh bra-vo. You win this debate, hands down. Yes, of course, an entire WW2-era army was going to operate at full capacity and offer credible resistance by 'making every shot count' and 'taking more from the Russians'. Definitely, a plausible strategy. I laud your insight and boundless wisdom.

Lokos

Did russians capture Viipuri and all the land they gained in military operations in your pravda -version?

About that "making every shot count" was the way to go during winter war since finns had even not enough personal weapons to all, and not even talking about ammunition. "Shooting last rounds" wasn't unconventional or a new situation during those days.

Lokos

02-25-2006, 01:14 PM

There were secondary defensive positions all the way to Viipuri, not as much built but they were there.

When I said 'major' and 'Main Line of Defence', I wasn't talking about secondary emplacements - I thought that was quite obvious. There was nothing nearly as fortified as the Mannerheim Line left for the Finnish Army to fall back to, after the breach thereof. This is indisputable.

The northern troops were not engaged with any serious action in spring 1940, as the Soviet attacks had been halted and they had dug in in defense.

Since we were talking hypothetical situations, I thought it pertinent to raise one of my own. Do you earnestly believe those troops would sit there, while the Finns strategically redeployed their forces south? Does this sound realistic, to you?

In Lapland the Swedish volunteers were holding the line. In Laatokan Karjala (the northwest area of the Lake Ladoga) the soviets had been stalled at Kollaa for months. The troops could have come from a lot of places, even from the interior of Finland.

Look, that's bull, pure and simple. There were practically no redeployable Finnish (or foreign) troops available. Even in a situation wherein twenty thousand such uncommitted reserves were available, this was not nearly sufficient a reserve to halt the Soviet advance for any length of time whatsoever, was it ordered to continue.

And if the lines of defense had been completely devastated the Finns would have reverted to guerrilla war.

So Yugoslavia, France, Greece, the Low Countries, Poland and Norway were never defeated, either? Seeing as they all took to guerrilla warfare following the capitulation of organized forces. Your logic is unsound.

Did russians capture Viipuri and all the land they gained in military operations in your pravda -version?

They certainly entered the outskirts of Viipuri. And on the day they did, the Finnish government began putting together terms.

About that "making every shot count" was the way to go during winter war since finns had even not enough personal weapons to all, and not even talking about ammunition. "Shooting last rounds" wasn't unconventional or a new situation during those days.

I'm sorry, but is it fun, living in La-la-land?

I'll try to be concise: WW2-era armies did not operate according to the principle outlined above. They could not. Any army attempting such an approach to an untenable supply situation would be rendered hors de combat in short order. Do you understand?

Lokos

Taekwondo

02-25-2006, 04:48 PM

When I said 'major' and 'Main Line of Defence', I wasn't talking about secondary emplacements - I thought that was quite obvious. There was nothing nearly as fortified as the Mannerheim Line left for the Finnish Army to fall back to, after the breach thereof. This is indisputable.

Since we were talking hypothetical situations, I thought it pertinent to raise one of my own. Do you earnestly believe those troops would sit there, while the Finns strategically redeployed their forces south? Does this sound realistic, to you?

Look, that's bull, pure and simple. There were practically no redeployable Finnish (or foreign) troops available. Even in a situation wherein twenty thousand such uncommitted reserves were available, this was not nearly sufficient a reserve to halt the Soviet advance for any length of time whatsoever, was it ordered to continue.

So Yugoslavia, France, Greece, the Low Countries, Poland and Norway were never defeated, either? Seeing as they all took to guerrilla warfare following the capitulation of organized forces. Your logic is unsound.

They certainly entered the outskirts of Viipuri. And on the day they did, the Finnish government began putting together terms.

I'll try to be concise: WW2-era armies did not operate according to the principle outlined above. They could not. Any army attempting such an approach to an untenable supply situation would be rendered hors de combat in short order. Do you understand?

Lokos

Friend, the Mannerheim-line's dug-in positions were rare, and few. The Kollaa front held in nothing but nature-made obstacles for months, and you're saying that couldn't have been done elsewhere? Whose got the strange logic? The fortifications were a strange phenomenon, not a rule in the Winter War. This is much more indisbutable than the fact that breaking the Mannerheim line meant catastrophe.

Finns were moving troops all the time during the war - and the allies weren't present when the peace treaty was signed. So it's pretty unimaginative to go saying that the situation was the end for the Finns when it was done. Germany had its part in the peace agreement as shown by their promise that the Fuhrer has put his umbrella over Finland. Finns took a time-out.

The major soviet approach to Viipuri happened at the crossing of the Gulf of Viipuri, which the Finns repelled. The city itself was in Finnish hands for the entire war.

The war would have continued as a guerilla war for all eternity, as the Finns would have just kept going on till the population had been exterminated - the army was actually much better equipped in 1/1940 than in 11/39. What happened in Poland was the wrong deployment of troops and the Soviet backstab, Finland was surrounded by at least half-friendly nations. Sweden wouldn't probably have like to have the USSR as a border neighbour. And then there's op. Barbarossa coming on. Not too good for Leningrad to have an operation against guerrillas going on in Finland then!

"WW2-era armies did not operate according to the principle outlined above. They could not."

Expect that the Finns would have done that.

Lokos

02-25-2006, 10:28 PM

Friend, the Mannerheim-line's dug-in positions were rare, and few. The Kollaa front held in nothing but nature-made obstacles for months, and you're saying that couldn't have been done elsewhere?

Learn more about your own defensive line, and principles of defensive warfare. The Mannerheim Line was more about utilization of terrain and logistical outlay than fixed positions. And, as such, it was the only prepared defensive LINE in the Finnish repertoire. There was no other operational level defensive option - no other operational defensive advantage for the Finns to use in containing and throwing back the Soviet assault.

Finns were moving troops all the time during the war - and the allies weren't present when the peace treaty was signed. So it's pretty unimaginative to go saying that the situation was the end for the Finns when it was done.

Truly? The Finns were moving their entire northern complement of forces south all the time, were they? And the Soviets obliged these movements by remaining sedentary, did they?

The major soviet approach to Viipuri happened at the crossing of the Gulf of Viipuri, which the Finns repelled. The city itself was in Finnish hands for the entire war.

For the *most* it was in Finnish hands. And how long that would hold, after March 15, is a very academic debate. Too bad the Finns threw in the towel on the 5th.

The war would have continued as a guerilla war for all eternity, as the Finns would have just kept going on till the population had been exterminated - the army was actually much better equipped in 1/1940 than in 11/39.

I've already responded to this nonsense.

Expect that the Finns would have done that.

Refusing to grasp a very simple point doesn't make you clever. They couldn't have done it, they wouldn't have done it, and if they'd tried, they'd have failed. Understand it. Comprehend it. Live with it.

Lokos

Thor

02-25-2006, 11:16 PM

Obviously Lokos is man with issues on how to relate to history. Proven wrong so many times and still keeps coming back posting his Soviet fairytales. I guess it's hard to maintain pride for a serbian refugee these days, with one's country getting ass wopped throughout the 20th century (combined with some shoot-outs at Srebrenica and other places).

I'll respond to this thread after the olympic hockey final (I know that you'll probably claim that Russia actually defeated Finland in the semis and that it's a NATO conspiracy, but still.).

p-)

koutch

02-26-2006, 01:10 AM

Dima-RussianArms

02-26-2006, 01:42 AM

Obviously Lokos is man with issues on how to relate to history.
Proven wrong so many times and still keeps coming back posting his Soviet fairytales.
"Proven wrong" -???
The only things that yourself and likes of you ever mastered against him in this and other threads were bigotry, sarcasm, nationalism and personal insults, but ofcourse you call it proof...
Based on what I have seen on this board, "soviet fairytales" pale in comparison to the ones that were and still are presented as facts in the west.

I guess it's hard to maintain pride for a serbian refugee these days,
Thor, you are a low life f*** scum racist and I hope that life will treat you accordingly.
Lokos is the combat veteran, wtf have you seen in your life besides own pimply face in the mirror?

with one's country getting ass wopped throughout the 20th century (combined with some shoot-outs at Srebrenica and other places).
His country had enough pride and strength to stand up for itself at least twice in the face of the overwhelming odds - that deserves nothing but respect.

Now, since you like talking about ass whoopings so much, lets take a look at the history of your Sweden. I am sorry, I forgot how big it used to be and what happened to it? Was it "ass whooped" - no, it was ASS RAPED!
Ass raped by the bear, by the undermench, it was reduced from the European powerhouse of it's time down to a country size of a postage stamp on the map. How does that feel? Your little rotten inside can't forget it for a second and that is why you troll in every topic that has to do with Russia.
I hope you will drown in your own spew of hatred.
Animals like you, kilgor and such - disgust me, this board and world would be much better off without likes of you.

On topic.
1. 1809 Russia liberates Finland from evil Swedish empire

2. After October revolution new Russian government grants Finland independence

3. Stalin realizes that war with Germany is inevitable, quick look at the map clearly shows vulnerability of the particular region in case of war - Russia needs a buffer zone.

4. Negotiations lead to nothing, shots fired, SU invades.

5. Due to number of reasons war doesn't progress according to plan but which war ever did? Nevertheless Finland surrenders what SU was looking for.

6. 1941-1945, newly aquired "buffer zone" does make a difference and most likely saves Leningrad.

7. WW2 is followed immediatelly by the Cold War. Everything Soviet is bad and wrong, russians are inherently evil savages and such...
Both East and West teach kids their own version of history, who grow up and teach their kids the same "slightly" biased "historical facts".

8. Internet becomes widespread and allows people from all over the world share their views, belives and knowledge.
Some open up their minds to new ideas and fresh perspectives while others (Thor, Kilgore and Co.) use it to promote bigotry and racism...

Lazarou

02-26-2006, 01:47 AM

Lokos should write a book. I would fit so perfectly in my bookshelf between California Joe's book "The Hermaphrodite Snipers of Stalingrad" and Baghdad Bob's "There Are No Americans In Baghdad".

Kilgor

02-26-2006, 03:27 AM

7. WW2 is followed immediatelly by the Cold War. Everything Soviet is bad and wrong, russians are inherently evil savages and such...
Both East and West teach kids their own version of history, who grow up and teach their kids the same "slightly" biased "historical facts".

8. Internet becomes widespread and allows people from all over the world share their views, belives and knowledge.
Some open up their minds to new ideas and fresh perspectives while others (Thor, Kilgore and Co.) use it to promote bigotry and racism...[/COLOR]

20th century, the worst two dictatorships in history arise. Stalin's soviet union, Hitlers germany. Both are responsible for mass murder, racial/political genocide, mass empire of concentration camps, political terror.

Hitlers germany defeated in war, its crimes exposed and country forced to admit its mistakes. Something the soviet union never was forced to do, and to this day glosses over its criminal past thanks to the help of appologists and propaganda.

Taekwondo

02-26-2006, 06:35 AM

On topic.
1. 1809 Russia liberates Finland from evil Swedish empire

--which really isn't a liberation as the Swedish laws are kept in place

2. After October revolution new Russian government grants Finland independence

--which Lenin quickly changes so that he grants the rebelling reds independence - Finland is welcome back!

3. Stalin realizes that war with Germany is inevitable, quick look at the map clearly shows vulnerability of the particular region in case of war - Russia needs a buffer zone.

--which has absolutely no meaning, as the Finns then run the Soviets out in a few weeks from this "buffer zone". Besides, Stalin was Hitler's pal at the time so his greatest threat was from the UK or from Japan

4. Negotiations lead to nothing, shots fired, SU invades.

--the negotiations lead to something in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Finns knew what was going on.

5. Due to number of reasons war doesn't progress according to plan but which war ever did? Nevertheless Finland surrenders what SU was looking for.

--Finland didn't surrender and it wasn't occupied. That was what the SU was looking for and didn't get.

6. 1941-1945, newly aquired "buffer zone" does make a difference and most likely saves Leningrad.

--its effectiveness demonstrated by the fast Finnish advance to the level of Sestoresk and staying there for 3 years?

7. WW2 is followed immediatelly by the Cold War. Everything Soviet is bad and wrong, russians are inherently evil savages and such...
Both East and West teach kids their own version of history, who grow up and teach their kids the same "slightly" biased "historical facts".

--and some people know by experience. Trust me.

8. Internet becomes widespread and allows people from all over the world share their views, belives and knowledge.
Some open up their minds to new ideas and fresh perspectives while others (Thor, Kilgore and Co.) use it to promote bigotry and racism...

--there's very little rasism in disassembling matters of importance and brushing away some of the buffer zone-kind propaganda crap.

Taekwondo

02-26-2006, 06:39 AM

Lokos, do you have any idea of the nature of the Finnish terrain, people and spirit? Your comment "Refusing to grasp a very simple point doesn't make you clever. They couldn't have done it, they wouldn't have done it, and if they'd tried, they'd have failed. Understand it. Comprehend it. Live with it." tells it all.

The people would have fought, failed but kept on fighting anyway. It would have been one hell of a liberation for the Soviets sent here. Comprehend it and live with it.

Lokos

02-26-2006, 08:26 AM

Obviously Lokos is man with issues on how to relate to history. Proven wrong so many times and still keeps coming back posting his Soviet fairytales.

Name one time you've proven me wrong, you filthy racist midget.

While you're at it, why don't you give me the NAMES of those researches and historians you mentioned before?

I guess it's hard to maintain pride for a serbian refugee these days, with one's country getting ass wopped throughout the 20th century (combined with some shoot-outs at Srebrenica and other places).

In other words, you know as much about my country and its history as you do the Second World War? Less than nothing, that is.

Lokos should write a book. I would fit so perfectly in my bookshelf between California Joe's book "The Hermaphrodite Snipers of Stalingrad" and Baghdad Bob's "There Are No Americans In Baghdad".

Wit is the refuge of the defeated.

Lokos, do you have any idea of the nature of the Finnish terrain, people and spirit?

Do not go telling a Serb about a defiant people and a proud spirit, son. We embody the very concept.

The people would have fought, failed but kept on fighting anyway. It would have been one hell of a liberation for the Soviets sent here. Comprehend it and live with it.

1) Fighting after the destruction of the organized field army is an exercise in futility, militarily. If that stage had been reached, the Finland was defeated already, according to my interpretation of victory and defeat. Like I have said on numerous occasions, now, Yugoslavia was not 'undefeated' because it kept up a four year insurgent struggle against the Axis...

2) I prefer to live in the land of fact, than in your romanticist neighbourhood. I have shown you that, in March, the Soviet Union was in a militarily advantageous position, when compared to Finland. You have countered this by saying 'but we would fight on'. Yes, you can fight until you die, but you have, in the meantime, been defeated. Whether you know it or not.

Lokos

Taekwondo

02-26-2006, 09:18 AM

"Do not go telling a Serb about a defiant people and a proud spirit, son. We embody the very concept."

And you don't go sonning around people who know their general history of the Balkans quite well.

"1) Fighting after the destruction of the organized field army is an exercise in futility, militarily. If that stage had been reached, the Finland was defeated already, according to my interpretation of victory and defeat. Like I have said on numerous occasions, now, Yugoslavia was not 'undefeated' because it kept up a four year insurgent struggle against the Axis..."

So a nation is defeated completely even if a good portion of its people keep fighting back? That makes the USSR veterans of Afghanistan happy.

"2) I prefer to live in the land of fact, than in your romanticist neighbourhood. I have shown you that, in March, the Soviet Union was in a militarily advantageous position, when compared to Finland. You have countered this by saying 'but we would fight on'. Yes, you can fight until you die, but you have, in the meantime, been defeated. Whether you know it or not"

So what's your point, then? It's not romanticising to point the fact that even after such a defeat the war would have dragged on. The Finns would have died and that's it, either in an eternal guerrilla war or by extermination, deportations and such preserved for them. You go ahead and guess which one was the preferred option. Hint: between a worst and a worse option it's an easy choice. Of course Finns could have taken the road to Katyn, but I kinda doubt it, sonny.

Lokos

02-26-2006, 11:37 AM

And you don't go sonning around people who know their general history of the Balkans quite well.

Yes? Perhaps you want to dispute my statement?

Go ahead. I'm up for a good debate.

So a nation is defeated completely even if a good portion of its people keep fighting back? That makes the USSR veterans of Afghanistan happy.

You're absolutely right. We should rewrite history. Because, the way you tell it, the Germans never really defeated anyone in WW2. All nations occupied had a 'good proportion of [their] people fighting back'. Listen to what I'm telling you: Defeat on the field is defeat. There is no 'we will keep fighting' after the fact. You CAN keep fighting. That doesn't change the fact that your side was (hypothetically) defeated. How you do not comprehend this distinction between a de juro/de facto defeat and continued resistance by token forces is beyond me.

So what's your point, then? It's not romanticising to point the fact that even after such a defeat the war would have dragged on. The Finns would have died and that's it, either in an eternal guerrilla war or by extermination, deportations and such preserved for them. You go ahead and guess which one was the preferred option. Hint: between a worst and a worse option it's an easy choice. Of course Finns could have taken the road to Katyn, but I kinda doubt it, sonny.

Having read through that, just now, I have no idea what you're trying to say, in truth. You admit that such a defeat was likely, then say 'the war would have dragged on'. And then you insinuate that, for the Finnish people, it was either victory or 'extermination' - which is extreme rubbish, but if it's something you need to believe in, go right ahead.

So what's your point?

'You're right, but there would be an insurgency' - ?

Is that what you're saying?

If so, I agree. And have never argued otherwise. Apart from stating that insurgencies are, militarily speaking, ineffectual in offering credible resistance.

Lokos

Jippo

02-26-2006, 12:59 PM

after all the bull**** threads started by finns, i can happily say, thank God/Allah/You name it for the Winter war!otherwise the finns on this board (except maybe one) would have nothing to be proud of. Seriously besides that war and making the conan show,and beating Russia in hockey what did Finland accomplish? I don't know, and probably neither do you :) I suggest a Finnish week/day/hour (depending on accomplisments) on MP net so we could celebrate the cultural and scientific as well as military accomplishments of that amazing country.woot
RIP to the victims from both sides.

5 million Finns have achieved a lot. For example one of the richest countries in the world. Finland was the country with most economic competence in the world last year.

Death percentage of small children is one of the lowest in the world.

Life expectancy of population is very good too, IIRC 20 years more than in Russia for men.

All of these are signs of a nation that has achieved quite a lot: namely high standard of living and safe environment

That couldn't be said about Russia, as despite their huge natural richness' like oil and gas, have managed to **** themselves up. Finland would be mess like that too if there weren't the victories of the past.

And Welcome back Lokos, i truily admire the research you put in your posts, you have far more patience that I do, and i have more than Roman :D

I had some respect for Lokos and his manners, but after what he wrote here it is all gone.

-jippo

Jippo

02-26-2006, 01:09 PM

Krivosheev is the only authority on the subject. His method of collating casualties is in line with German methods of collating theirs. The only matter of uncertainty are some figures for 1941. I do not see what you are contending, to be honest. Of course there are other researchers undertaking studies of a similar nature. None have proven to be more thorough, more exacting and more consistent than Krivosheev. I'd love to see who you have in mind, though.

There are quite a few, but to mention one pair: Bergstrom & Mikhailov. Just that you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. I even don't want to say a Finnish name, since you would say right away he is partial...

1) Stalin didn't know the state of the alleged WA intervention forces, but he knew that there was a threat of this intervention taking place. That is all that mattered.

2) The Soviet Union, in March 1940, could have flattened Finland. I'm sorry, but that's the way of it, and no amount of Finnish patriotism will change that.

It wasn't feasible to invade Finland, so they didn't do it. If it was they would have. What made invading Finland unfeasible for Soviet Union was the Finnish patriotism not foreign aid. Same thing for 1944, they couldn't afford to spend so much resources to gain so little.

And yet Finland acquiesced on both accounts. Perhaps the Finnish leadership of the time understood something you apparently fail to.

No, it is the same thing, patriotism and staying independent. If there first wasn't a military victory, there also wouldn't be peace negotiations with vastly larger foe.

Soviets had goals which they couldn't meet, so they had to take what they could.

-jippo

FDF_Hemppis

02-26-2006, 01:29 PM

Russians (and Serbians for that matter) furiously post to attack the Finnish Mannerheim-firewall. Fight goes on, breakthroughs are achieved on both sides, attacks and counterattacks are conducted, but as neither is giving up, the hostilities ensue!

Finland receives drops of aid from here and there, namely Swedish volunteers, while Russia counts on Serbian "lend-and-lease"!

Will the fight be told as the Russian Oh-so-great-patriotic-war-version (Russian generally pwnd Finland into oblivion), or the Western-filthy-propaganda-version (Russia received two black eyes and got a few teeth knocked out, but won on points)!

All this, AND MORE!, in the next episode of "How the Finnish wars REALLY went?!"

Same bat forum, same bat-thread. p-)

Lokos

02-26-2006, 05:55 PM

had some respect for Lokos and his manners, but after what he wrote here it is all gone.

If your respect hinges on similarity of opinion on all things, then I'd rather not have it.

There are quite a few, but to mention one pair: Bergstrom & Mikhailov. Just that you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. I even don't want to say a Finnish name, since you would say right away he is partial...

Bergstrom and Mikhailov as in, respectively, the British and Soviet aviation historians who wrote Black Cross, Red Star? What, pray tell, have they done in terms of casualty research?

It wasn't feasible to invade Finland, so they didn't do it.

Come again?

So... the Soviets didn't attack Finland? Or do you mean 'occupy' when you say 'invade'?

What made invading Finland unfeasible for Soviet Union was the Finnish patriotism not foreign aid. Same thing for 1944, they couldn't afford to spend so much resources to gain so little.

I suggest you read up a little on 1944.

No, it is the same thing, patriotism and staying independent. If there first wasn't a military victory, there also wouldn't be peace negotiations with vastly larger foe.

You are mistaken. Finland had numerous military victories. Yet the negotiations didn't start until Stalin believed a WA intervention to be imminent. This is evidenced by his refusal to even consider the Finnish peace offer of 5 March. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Finnish successes had anything to do with the limited terms eventually accepted by the Soviet side.

Same bat forum, same bat-thread.

You rock.

Lokos

FDF_Hemppis

02-26-2006, 06:14 PM

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Finnish successes had anything to do with the limited terms eventually accepted by the Soviet side.
As a Finn, I'd say you're assuming an awful lot now ;)

You rock.

Yes, yes. Why state the obvious? p-)

Minardiau

02-26-2006, 06:16 PM

6. 1941-1945, newly aquired "buffer zone" does make a difference and most likely saves Leningrad.

Finland had no intentions of capturing or even assisting Germany in the capture of St Petersberg. During the 2nd Winter War as soon as the Finns re-took what they had lost in the 1st war they stopped their advance.

They could of quite easily continued their advance into Russia proper but chose not to.

Jippo

02-27-2006, 02:43 AM

If your respect hinges on similarity of opinion on all things, then I'd rather not have it.

You can have your opinion by all means, but you could have said it very differently.

Bergstrom and Mikhailov as in, respectively, the British and Soviet aviation historians who wrote Black Cross, Red Star? What, pray tell, have they done in terms of casualty research?

Swedish and Russian, yes authors of the mentioned book. They have done research on aircraft losses, comparing archives on both sides.

Come again?

So... the Soviets didn't attack Finland? Or do you mean 'occupy' when you say 'invade'?

Here is the timeline:

1. Soviets planned an attack to invade Finland in two weeks time(published & proven)
2. Soviets staged escalation of conflict and started invasion
3. Attack was stopped on the border, breakthroughs were surrounded and destroyed with great loss of Soviet material and personnel.
4. Soviets couldn't invade Finland as planned, peace followed.

Why allied incursion had no effect:
- they would not have supported Finland (the mentioned 6000 troops) but occupied north of sweden.
- Hitler wouldn't have allowed this
- western allies didn't want escalation of war at this point (Poland)
- sweden didn' give troops right of passage.

The plan of western allies were never realistic, and Stalin knew that. Stalin would have eventually invaded Finland completely, but not for the price he was ready to pay. He knew the problems in the Baltic countries and their resistance movement, and Baltics had been a piecemeal for him in the past. Finland had proven to be tougher nut to crack already, and it would prove to be a difficult area to control also in the future. He had to prepare for another war which lay in the future.

I suggest you read up a little on 1944.

Why? What else I should know that I'm not yet aware of?

-jippo

Taekwondo

02-27-2006, 04:31 AM

And back to the original story:

for those who have seen the movie, what was it like?

If people are interested in seeing human wave attacks, tanks being assaulted with logs and war not being glorified but shown as it is, they could seek a copy of the Winter War by Pekka Parikka. It is a well-made movie from the Taipale Terenttilä sector, which held against the huge odds.

Includes the same Volvo-engined T-26's as the Fire and ice probably does...a Finnish post war modification to get the things running, and yes they're unique...

Turhapuro

02-27-2006, 04:17 PM

Finland had no intentions of capturing or even assisting Germany in the capture of St Petersberg. During the 2nd Winter War as soon as the Finns re-took what they had lost in the 1st war they stopped their advance.

They could of quite easily continued their advance into Russia proper but chose not to.
That is not quite true. Old border was crossed and better defensive positions taken.

Taekwondo

02-27-2006, 04:26 PM

But with the specific orders that Leningrad be left alone. The East Karelia had been degreed to Finland by Molotov already in 1939, claiming that finally the Finnish tribes will be united...

The only time von Manstein writes about Finns in his memoirs is saying that this was Mannerheim's opinion and Germans couldn't do anything about it.

TheRussian1

02-27-2006, 04:55 PM

The thing I always found funny about the conflict was when Molotov submitted Soviet demands to the FInns, they were designed so Finland could not accept the. But the finns accepted most of the demands and requested that the rest be submitted under international mediation. Molotov was obviously not too happy...

Minardiau

02-27-2006, 06:11 PM

That is not quite true. Old border was crossed and better defensive positions taken.

But you get the idea though. As far as Finland was concerned their war aims were met.

Lokos

02-28-2006, 04:31 AM

You can have your opinion by all means, but you could have said it very differently.

I've been trying to put it in terms as neutral as can possibly be. It's an analysis of a historical situation. Although I am inclined to see things from the Soviet POV, I am still a third party, and do not mind saying that the Soviets, in 1939, put in a miserable performance. But, as I've been trying to tell you and your compatriots, the situation in 1940 was what it was, and I'm just attempting to bring that point across.

Swedish and Russian, yes authors of the mentioned book. They have done research on aircraft losses, comparing archives on both sides.

Krivosheev's specialty is personnel losses, not losses of machines (although he does catalogue those, as well). I've said it before, I'll say it again: he is the sole authority on Soviet losses in any 20th century campaign. His research and access to Soviet archives has resulted in near-impeccable accuracy and consistency of information.

1. Soviets planned an attack to invade Finland in two weeks time(published & proven)
2. Soviets staged escalation of conflict and started invasion
3. Attack was stopped on the border, breakthroughs were surrounded and destroyed with great loss of Soviet material and personnel.
4. Soviets couldn't invade Finland as planned, peace followed.

There are a couple of steps between 3. and 4. You're missing two months of timeline, right there. Tell the whole story, please.

Why allied incursion had no effect:
- they would not have supported Finland (the mentioned 6000 troops) but occupied north of sweden.
- Hitler wouldn't have allowed this
- western allies didn't want escalation of war at this point (Poland)
- sweden didn' give troops right of passage.

As a historian - even an amateur historian - one must understand this: when analysing any given historical event or persona, do not use the 20/20 that hindsight provides. What we now know of the WA inability to aid Finland was not known to Stalin at the time, who signed the accords on 12 March not because of a stalemate on the ground, but because of this WA threat, that seemed a looming danger at the time.

The plan of western allies were never realistic, and Stalin knew that.

You know this for a fact? Stalin and 'realism' are two words I don't often see used in the same sentence. For example, he was outraged when he found out how few divisions the British were fielding in late 1941. Outraged.

He knew the problems in the Baltic countries and their resistance movement, and Baltics had been a piecemeal for him in the past.

Come again?

Why? What else I should know that I'm not yet aware of?

Soviet capabilities? The fact that they used secondary formations in the Continuation War? The fact that they devoted very few resources to a 'sideshow' campaign that gained more ground in a few days than was gained in two months of Winter War fighting? You know, little things like that.

But you get the idea though. As far as Finland was concerned their war aims were met.

Might of also had something to do with extremely heavy Finnish casualties in moving forward against entrenched Soviet resistance in 1941, as opposed to defending well prepared and favourable, familiar terrain from a hapless Soviet foe that could not conduct reconnaissance or utilize combined arms tactics effectively.

Lokos

Crna Legija

02-28-2006, 05:02 AM

Do not go telling a Serb about a defiant people and a proud spirit, son. We embody the very concept.

I just threw up the delicious veal schnitzel I had for dinner.

Mate you are a legend. I said it before and I'll say it again. This place should be named militarycomedians.net. Lokos you would be the Jerry Seinfeld of the place.

Keep going champ, regale us all with your journalistic exploits and how you managed to solve the riddle of the Sphinx...

Classic!

Taekwondo

02-28-2006, 06:09 AM

I've been trying to put it in terms as neutral as can possibly be. It's an analysis of a historical situation. Although I am inclined to see things from the Soviet POV, I am still a third party, and do not mind saying that the Soviets, in 1939, put in a miserable performance. But, as I've been trying to tell you and your compatriots, the situation in 1940 was what it was, and I'm just attempting to bring that point across.

So you agree that the USSR didn't reach its goals? A good book would be V. Stepakov's winter war from the soviet side study, can't remember the name though. It's available in Russian, as is Timo Vihavainen's book about Stalin's relations with Finland and Finns.

As a historian - even an amateur historian - one must understand this: when analysing any given historical event or persona, do not use the 20/20 that hindsight provides. What we now know of the WA inability to aid Finland was not known to Stalin at the time, who signed the accords on 12 March not because of a stalemate on the ground, but because of this WA threat, that seemed a looming danger at the time.

And Finns signed because Goering said it wouldn't matter, because they'd get everything back in a while. The peace treaty wasn't signed from Soviet goodwill, but because Finns took their chances with signing it.

Soviet capabilities? The fact that they used secondary formations in the Continuation War?

Nice. First you say "secondary formation"...

The fact that they devoted very few resources to a 'sideshow' campaign that gained more ground in a few days than was gained in two months of Winter War fighting? You know, little things like that.

Then you go into saying that the soviets gained a lot of ground in a short time, almost as if you're saying it was done by those same formations. Well, even if you aren't, the formations in 1944 were one of the best available, guards and such. And again, Finns stopped the attack short north of Laatokka, and again in Tali-Ihantala. So long time or short, the defenses weren't broken in the end.

Might of also had something to do with extremely heavy Finnish casualties in moving forward against entrenched Soviet resistance in 1941, as opposed to defending well prepared and favourable, familiar terrain from a hapless Soviet foe that could not conduct reconnaissance or utilize combined arms tactics effectively.
Lokos

And reaching the aim of the campaign.

Lokos

02-28-2006, 08:01 AM

So you agree that the USSR didn't reach its goals?

Yes, yes I do.

And Finns signed because Goering said it wouldn't matter, because they'd get everything back in a while.

Get real. Mannerheim himself thought the situation had become hopeless by March, and would become untenable by April. The first treaty draft was forwarded to the Soviets on 5 March by the Finns. The way you put it, it's almost as if the Finns signed terms proposed by the Soviets, when in actuality it was the other way around.

Nice. First you say "secondary formation"...

I'm sorry, but they were.

Then you go into saying that the soviets gained a lot of ground in a short time, almost as if you're saying it was done by those same formations.

It was done by exactly those same formations.

Well, even if you aren't, the formations in 1944 were one of the best available, guards and such.

1) The Soviets didn't have a 'Waffen SS'. The Guards formations were divisions and lower echelon formations that earned the designation by being nearly destroyed in combat. Guardsmen usually had a little more artillery, 10-15% stronger infantry companies and a slightly larger paycheck. These, however, were not 'elite' formations - nor the best available.

2) The formations used in the 1944 attack on Finland included: 21st Army, 7th Army and 32nd Army. Altogether, the manpower commitment was actually smaller than the 1940 total by several factors.

And again, Finns stopped the attack short north of Laatokka, and again in Tali-Ihantala. So long time or short, the defenses weren't broken in the end.

The Soviets took Viipuri in under ten days. And they took Viipuri with the 21st Army and the 23rd Army - a combined force of less than 150,000 men (17 divisions). Compare that to 1940! To get at Viipuri they had to tear through two Finnish defence lines, and the main Viipuri line. This was done skillfully. The Finnish success in temporarily halting further Soviet offensives had more to do with Soviet strategic nonchalance (Finland was a secondary theater five days after the offensive in Karelia was launched) and unwillingness to press the attack with abandon, than with any show of opposition by the Finns (who were also backed by German forces in Finland).

Lokos