The main myth of the Continuation War

Sensitive, yes. I can understand that...it sorta goes both ways.

Read the post number 28. It's all there.

Yes, SU was a victim of nazi agression. So was Poland, Denmark, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Holland etc.

Finland was victim of Soviet agression before Soviet was victim of nazi agression. After the nazi agression was beaten back, Soviets "liberated" Eastern Europe including those who were first victim of nazi agression.

I know all about the GPW. The problem is that Soviets don't include Winter War in GPW but the Finns include Winter War (as the Invasion of Poland is WWII - both results from the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty) in WWII. I also do know about the treatment of Winter War in Soviet Union DURING the war when all seemed to go sour. My sources says that the whole affair was minisculed to mere border skirmishing. (Kinda funny when the official Soviet propaganda touted about Finnish invasion since the Army of workers and peasants never invade as they just "liberate".)

We have the same problem with foreign books about Finland in WWII. The official German view was used (consider that conservative German war veterans thought Finland as a traitor to the German "cause")plus the Soviet view. Only during the last decade there has been extensive use of Finnish archives. The language barrier is mightier than one does think of.

I'm not that emotional (sarcastic at times, yes ) it's just my writing style (My high school finnish teacher thought I was a "mean" writer). If you think that something I posted was just my opinion you should challenge that. Same if you think that something is historically incorrect.

History isn't an exact science.

If you really read all my posts carefully, you seemed to not to notice this then:

"The Soviets speak and write about the Great Patriotic War for a reason. They want to look like they were the victim. That the Winter War is left out or "omitted" is no accident. Since the GPW lasted from 1941 to 45 that leaves out such "little incidents" like the Winter War, invasion of Poland, annexations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania plus the capture of Bessarabia from Rumania."

This is what I meant. You simply don't find anything "shameful" about German atrocities in Russia or elsewhere in my posts.

Actually it is true and I do have the sources. Jokipii is not the only scholar in Finland.

And yes, I do read books even from scholars. In fact, Jokipii's Jatkosodan synty (Birth of the Continuation War) from 1987 is just waiting on my coffee table to be read after I'm finished with Beevor's Paris 1944. I guess this IS THE BOOK you mean?

You wrote: "...Virtually, all of your posts contain the same thing; sarcasm, emotion/opinion, some come of hostile and some are just historically incorrect".. and..."that it is Mauno Jokipii's analysis which contradicts virtually all of which you claim and you have yet to find a legitimate source which backs your theory."

So far I understand that Jokipii's thesis is about detailed information about the Fenno-German co-op during the Interim Peace -period which sunk the earlier "drift log" -theory cultivated by some historians (mainly Korhonen, a regular officer & a historian).

I should remind you that a lot has been written in Finland about WWII after Jokipii's Jatkosodan synty. It would mean that his analysis could be outdated since other Finnish historians have the Russian archives which Jokipii didn't have.

So far you have claimed that "Virtually, all of your posts contain the same thing; sarcasm, emotion/opinion, some come of hostile and some are just historically incorrect". Sarcasm: yes, emotion: a little, opinion & historically incorrect: I'm afraid that YOU just have to provide more than your opinion. Otherwise this qualifies as a personal attack.

Hmm...you wrote:

"Your hatred for Russia has blinded you of facts once again and no matter how pationately you try to excuse or deny Finlands military and political cooperation with Germany wont change the fact that Finland (no matter the reason) fought alongside ultimate evil."

A contradiction. Now that is strong language even in my book

Hmm...so this means that you don't agree with the basic principle of the League of Nation's treaty about the demilitarization of the Aland Islands?

(Which stated that all the signatories should leave the area outside of their military operations and that Finland had (and still has) right to mine the waters and place forces on the Islands. )

My sources say (starting from the Talvisodan ja Jatkosodan kronikat) that SU used diplomatic methods not really belonging to a state of peace between 2 countries (although those 2 had just had a war).

So, is my information either irrelevant or just false?

It would be interesting to know if you don't accept the Kaleva incident happened at all.

I haven't been able to read yet the one Jokipii book you seem have high regard to, so I can't challenge HIS analysis about the beginning...but as there are other scholars they have their own interpretations.

Then again, if Jokipii's analysis is too close to Seppälä's or Baryshnikov's?

But this should be done in a appropriate thread.

That goes for both ways. It has nothing to do with that I'm a new member. That I AM a new member doesn't mean that I have never posted before as I'm still a member in other forums...but it is true that I have received this message from a Russian poster before.

Then this must be the paradise. The revisionists (both Hitlerian and Stalinists) are still in the other forums.

 

to Sloniksp:

Earned from what? Again, this your opinion that I'm insensitive and hostile. Really open for interpretation.

and you wrote:

which is a proof that you missed the my post number 28 in this thread completely. If that is insensitive and hostile one has to think what are you all about. Isn't that what you wrote kinda hostile and open for interpretation?

Your "verdict" should have come from this:

You have not challenged that with sources at all. Yet you claim that I'm posting "opinions and historically incorrect irrelevancies".

So thanks again for the negative rep.

 

Yes Volga, there is no denying that Soviet Russia too militarily co-operated with Nazi-Germany. Russia is also the only country to date to publicly denounce the co-operation with Nazi Germany no other country including Finland, followed suite. As for Polant not being attacked at all if it wasnt for Russia, im not sure. I would probably say that it was unlikely, however; nothing is for sure when speaking of matters that did not occur and on top of that adding Hitler to the equation.

The situation however was not white and black and far more complex. An interesting discussion but for another thread.

 

Yes, it was Stalin which attacked Finland in 1940.

There is a fine line between the "Great Patriot War" and WW2. WW2 started in 1939 (Winter War can be included), GPW started in 41. The Winter War is and was mentioned in Russian school books when speaking of WW2 but not mentioned when speaking of the GPW as it wasnt part of it.

Also when speaking of the Soviet Union, one should not be surprised that certain things are conveniently left out. We are afterall speaking of the time of Stalin

It seems I am not the only one which holds a similar opinion of your writings. If your very own highschool teacher thinks that you are a "mean" writer imagine how your posts may come off to other rogues from different parts of the world, who dont know you.

It is not my intension to pick a fight or judge you AirdefMike, however; in this forum you will be held accountable for what you write. Considering that your very own teacher thinks you are a "mean" writer, it is up to you to change your language when engaged in a debate in order to prevent such incidents from occuring in the future.

My negative rep was not a reflection of you as an individual or a judgement of character but based solely on your post.

I will give back your rep points but please be more carefull in the future in choosing the right words and phrases to use when discussing certain matters ( I myself learned the hard way )

Lets move on shall we?

All the best.

 

I found it in the web "Operation Barbarossa"

I didn´t see anything similar in this forum. My apologies if so.

 

If I remember correctly the Soviets consider that attack as a retaliatory air raid of some 480 aircraft. These raid were supposed to hit those Finnish airfields that the Germans had used for refueling in attacks of 22. June. Those raids somehow lost their directions and hit civilian targets instead.

It was after these raids that a state of war was declared (that doesn't mean declaration of war) in Finland in the Finnish parliament.

 

Just out of the curiosity: Am I the only one who has heard speculations of a "gentlemen pact" between Stalin and Mannerheim, which included Finns not intervening in the Petersburg siege and also not to attack Murmansk railroads transports with ski sqads, as Stalin agreed Finnish army to deploy to Äänislinna; but no further?

 

To be honest,no. I recently read that Mannerheim and Ryti ( Finnish president) had discussed some time before the continuation war started that they would never attack Leningrad if war (Barbarossa) should start.

 

There was no such gentleman treaty but you're not the only one that has heard speculations.

It can be argued though that STAVKA took notice of the Finnish inactivity in the Isthmus and reduced the amount of troops facing the Finns in order to get reinforcements against more critical sectors where the Germans were.

That was also a "message" from the Finns to the Soviets that the Finns won't attack Leningrad. It can be also said that this was the 1st instant where Soviets "recognised" (though not admitted) the Finnish claim of separate war.

 

Stalin attacked Finland 30.11.1939 - for the first time.

 

SU was NOT a victim - even if she suffered a lot like so many other countries - because she started WW2 in Europe together with her ally Germany. SU and Germany attacked and occupied Poland together as they had agreed - except SU broke the mutual agreement by delaying her attack. This made Germany to look the main attacker.

Stalin fooled Hitler to start the mutual attack on Poland. The declarations of war by France/GB were a great shock for Hitler. Stalin had assured him that they were only bluffing although he knew better. Large scale war was not Hitler's preference - at least not in 1939 - but Stalin's. Hitler wanted to continue easy victories and not to fight France and GB. Stalin wanted to get all western powers to fight with each other. After they had exhausted themselves it would have been an easy task for SU to run them over and conquer Europe -and get to the Atlantic. That was Stalin's long term plan as he had openly stated in his speech. After the war he almost got what he wanted...

SU also occupied Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia and northern Bukovina - together with the attack on Finland.

SU helped Germany to attack Denmark, Norway, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Belgium, France and UK by supporting Germany with oil, raw materials and grain, which were essential for Germany's ability to fight.

If Germany had not attacked SU 22.6.1941, SU would have attacked Germany in July (operation Groza). It was essential for Germany to attack first.

SU was definitely NOT a victim.

 

Those figures include c. 3 million non-soviet casualties from areas/countries, which were not part of SU prior to 1939. Big part of those casualties happened because of SU:n actions - not Germany's.

They also include abt 3-4 million civilians, who died of starvation/diseases behind SU's own lines. It is questionable if one can blame Germany for that - in a war, which both countries started together.

Civilian casualties include also all those, who died because of direct of indirect actions by the red army or partisans on both sides of the front line.

Civilian casualties include abt 500.000 reservists, who died before they had been officially listed. This doesn't of course change the total amount.

Yes - soviet casualties were high. Both Germany AND SU are to blame for them.

 

Before WW2 SU had more tanks than the rest of the world combined. Even Russia is not THAT big...!

It seems in the light of recent history that the answer is - with her neighboring countries...

 

"The ultimate evil"? It depends who one asks. For many people/countries - like Finns/Finland - during and after WW2 the ultimate evil was Soviet Union. Nazi-Germany only got the second place.

Nobody's denying the German atrocities. One still has to remember, that Germany got the education about concentration camps and gassing from SU. Of course Germany was more effective and systematic with killing too, but SU still managed to kill more innocent victims - although mostly her own citizens.

Germany did not kill 20 million soviet (not the same as Russian) civilians. Millions of soviet citizens - and citizens of areas/countries which SU had occupied - were killed because of various actions (or deliberate lack of them) of the soviet regime.

 

The difference is, that the population of Finland was 1/50th of the population of SU. Before the Winter War Finland had a tiny army which didn't have enough weapons - and the ones it had were outdated. Finnish politicians believed in neutrality, peace treaties, League of Nations and everlasting peace. Finland totally lacked all kinds of possibilities for any kind of offensive actions - and even almost lacked the ability to defend herself.

Yes, there was a deep distrust for SU. After all the soviets had caused bitter civil/Independence war in Finland, they had broken their promise of autonomy for Karelians and they had been agitating the communist unrest in Finland. The most important reason was of course the killings of thousands of Finns and Karelians in Eastern Karelia and Ingria, which was well known in Finland. In Finland no anti-soviet propaganda was needed - the reality was quite enough.

SU was always stronger. If SU had not attacked Finland in 1939 Finland would have never started any war against SU. Even 1941, when Germany attacked SU, did Finland declare herself neutral - although nobody believed it to be possible for Finland to avoid the new war, when there were both soviet and German troops in Finland.

Finland did not need any excuse in 1941. The reasons were multiple: the Winter War, occupation of Finnish Karelia/Salla/islands of the gulf of Finland/Hanko, peace treaty articles helping the new soviet attacks, multiple aerial border offences, agitating communist unrest in Finland, shooting down Finnish civilian passenger aircraft and preparing for a new attack against Finland - as Germany confirmed as well.

Eventually SU started again the new war by bombing Finnish cities, so any excuse would have been unnecessary anyway.

 

Karjala,

Many countries not just the Soviet Union dealt with Hitler. Finland too had pretty close ties with Nazi Germany if I remember correctly. I am unfamiliar with what is taught in Finland but from my knowledge Stalin never agreed to attack Poland on the same day as Hitler.

Aside from many things, Stalin was a great politician and should not be blamed for Hitlers stupidity and naivety. With that said, it would seem that in June 1941 it was in fact Hitler who outsmarted Stalin.

Hitler assured western Europe of the same things before he started to re-militarize the Rhineland. Where were GB and France when Hitler annexed Austria tore open Czechoslovakia? Western Europes appeasement of Nazi Germany did not help prevent WW2 either.

While I tend to hold a similar view, there is no evidence to back it up, only conspiracy theories. I am also having a difficult time locating this claim which Stalin openely spoke of in his speech, could you assist me?

Yes she did. As far as Stalin saw it, these lands were Russian and had been so longer than many colonies which the Western European countries possessed. I doubt that had these lands would have been independent countries had Lenin not come to power or had Germany not lost the Great War.

Really? So if I sell you a gun in my store and you shoot somebody, im responsible? Why are you conveniently singling out the Soviet Union for not stopping Hitler when the countires which signed the Versailles treaty (Russia was not one) themselves failed to act?

Stop reading Suvoruv and good luck trying to convince the academic community of such. Russia's abysmal performance in the summer of 1941 hardly shows a nation poised to start a war.

I am sorry you feel that way.

Karjala,

If an army invades and in the process takes your food, clothing, shelter etc. and you die as the result, the responsibility falls on the belligerent. Also, could you provide any sources for the "3 million non-soviet casualties from areas/countries which were not part of the SU in 1939 and the 500,000 reservists"? Apologies we just seem to be reading different material.

This is virtually the case today, so what?

In light of what recent history?

 

double post

 

*enters thread ... looks around ... sees politics, politics and more politics ... sighs ... leaves*

 

In hasty web search: almost no results on Groza operation. On this site: only your post. That probably means that "operation Groza" was a fake. Other way there are alot of war games that never come true .
I have always read that Soviet troops were in the process of changing their equipment .. BT5 by T 34 and so on ... it does not seem the most opportune moment to launch an offensive. .. There were no fuel or amunition suplies in the combat units ... and as What if? ... I've always thought the SU would have launched the offensive in WINTER.

 

You're right but I think that this thread turned into conspiracy theory. Try searching "conspiracy theory", "Suvorov", "Vladimir Rezun". CT's are fine stuff to laugh a bit!