The main myth of the Continuation War

Not only did Finland violate the Moscow Peace Treaty but also a decree set by the League of Nations in 1921 which forbade the militarization of the Alan Islands. Mauno Jokipii wrote the same thing in The Continuation War. "The occupation of the demilitarized islands along with the arrest of the Soviet consulate's personnel there violated the Soviet-Finnish agreement on the islands".
On the same day June 22, 1941 when the Germans launched Barbarossa, the Finnish troops launched Operation "Regatta" a violation for which they have been preparing for several months now.

Mauno Jokipii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From what I have read, Mauno was one of the leading if not the leading historian in Finland on the matter at hand. If you disagree with what he writes than the burden of proof is on you (as the academic community also stands by his book). We need more than opinions but facts and sources.

Also feel free to read this thread...

http://www.ww2f.com/winter-continuation-wars/40144-how-did-continuation-war-begin.html

 

how does it go, War is just an extension of politics by other means...

 

Just read the 1940 agreement. It forbids Finland to build any fortifications. Finland did not - until the soviets attacked again.

The 1921 agreement allows Finland in the time of war to locate necessary troops onto the islands to prevent any attacks threatning their neutrality.

I don't understand Jokipii's opinion. Feel free to read the agreements and make your own conclusions, as I did. Jokipii is A historian - not THE one.

Naturally Finnish army had planned also that kind of operation beforehand, as it was supposed to do.

Arresting the "consulate's personnel" (= occupation force) was against the peace treaty. So were shooting down Finnish passenger plane, creating communist unrest, multiply air border violencies etc.

 

The moment Finland launched "Regatta", she had broken the treaty which she had signed with the Soviet Union (Moscow peace treaty). The Soviet Union quickly mobilized her airforce and attempted to intercept. Finland also allowed Germany to use her airfields in order to launch attacks on the Soviet Union. Even today, such an act can be viewed as a declaration of war. The Soviet Union immediately responded (rightfully so IMO) and bombed the airfields from which the Luftwaffe came (yes, some cities were accidentally hit).

The bombings of Finnish airfields had occured after the Regatta incident by which time war was already at hand.

 

And the forum's 'extension' for such stuff is the stump, isn't it? Finnish concentration camps, the headline alone.

 

When SU attacked Finland (without any declaration of war) on 30th November 1939, she broke e.g. the 1920 Tartu peace treaty, articles of the League of Nations (SU was expelled because of this war), non-agression pacts 1932 and 1934 plus agreement of mutually solving any border problems. She also accused Finland for firing to soviet territory, when she actually did it herself - thus creating an excuse for attack.

All these shameful and illegal soviet actions and betrayals were more than enough to legalize any Finnish actions to protect Finland's independence from the very accute threat of "the ultimate evil".

"Regatta" was launched only after the war between Germany and SU had broken out. Therefore it was not against the Moscow treaty. Have you actually read it?

Soviet bombings (again without any declarations of war) were definitely against that same peace treaty.

Finland did NOT allow Germany to lauch attacks on SU. This was made very clear to Germans and they obeyd. No German planes launched their attacks on SU before 25.6., when Finland realised to be on a new war with SU - after multiple soviet attacks. The German planes did land for refuelling after their missions, but the planes left from Königsberg, where they returned.

"Some cities accidentally hit..." Soviet planes raided 15 Finnish cities and towns with 500 planes, causing lots of civilian casualties (114 dead, 500 wounded). They hit everything but the airfields. They only managed to burn a sauna and one other building at Turku airport. If this was not a declaration of war, I don't know what is.

The first soviet bombings on Finland occurred at 06.05 on 22.6.1941. Finland hadn't fired a shot. "Regatta" happened on Finnish soil/waters and was not against treaties.

 

Finland was never an ally of Germany, SU was. The other allies were e.g Italy and Japan. Finland only had close ties with Germany after the Winter War, when SU succesfully prevented Finland to get any other assistance anywhere else.

I don't think SU and Germany agreed on the exact day either, only on "mutual attact". However don't think it meant "you do the job and I'll get the free ride" either - as Germany continuously pointed out to her ally.

Nobody's blaming Stalin for Hitler's stupidity. I'm blaming Stalin for wanting and starting the WW2 in Europe.

Yes, Hitler outsmarted Stalin 1941.

Hitler fooled western Europe to get what he wanted without war. Stalin fooled Hitler to create war. Can you see the difference?

Western countries tried to avoid the war - not very succesfully though. SU allied with the enemy to start the war.

 

Can you read Finnish/Estonian? Surely this one is one of the topics Russian archives keep their doors tightly closed for.

Stalinin puhe 19
Virumaa Ndalaleht

Do you see things as Stalin did? At that time in western countries colonies were started to be seen increasingly as something to get rid off. No new colonies were established. In SU imperialism was well alive and kicking - as is today in Russia.

Nobody knows what would have happened, but those countries would still have been nations with their own languages and cultures. They would have still deserved their independence as well as - say Finland or Chechnya...

Yes, really. If you sell a gun and then that somebody goes and kills somebody else you are not responsible. However if you see somebody shooting people on the street and then sell him more guns and ammos for extra killing you ARE responsible.

Western countries failed to act - to maintain the peace. It turned out it didn't work. SU DID act - by joining the (other) aggressor and starting the war. Hardly the same thing.

Suvorov is not the only one.

SU's abysmal performance was due to many reasons. Here are some of them:
- soviet troops were in (forward) attack formations, good for - attacking. Defending is not succesful in attack formations
- Stalin did not believe Hitler was attacking and ordered not to fight back
- mobilization was not ready although massively on the way. Why - when Stalin did not believe on Germany's attack...?
- soviet troops did not have maps of soviet area (seems they had lots of maps of Germany...)

Stalin knew that SU had everything much more than Germany. Abysmal performance in Winter War did not mean, that SU didn't start that war...

I'm not. I'm sorry you still let the propaganda have an effect.

 

I was referring to areas NOT invaded by the Germans.

For example here: World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it's a wikipedia link, but the referencies seem quite convincing. At least the figures for Finland are correct.

Seems that Russia is not that different from SU and still wants to keep up the myth of "evil foreign countries getting ready to take Russia" - and/or wants to keep colonizing and bullying her neighbours

Georgia, Chechnya x 2, Afganistan...

 

Found several results. Here's one:

Revising the twentieth century's 'perfect storm' (review)

"To the second group belong military historians such as Viktor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans (Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker) and Austrians (Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch). (See review of Topitsch's Stalin's War in JHR, [Summer 1988]). They argue that Stalin trusted no one, least of all Hitler; that Stalin had, together with Marshal Zhukov, devised his own plan for a surprise offensive against Germany, with the ultimate goal of establishing Communism in Europe; and that it was the USSR, not Germany, which was better prepared for war"

Personally I don't think that "changing equipment" would have stopped the attack plan. BT5 was a worthy piece of metal at that time and armies always have older and more modern equipment at the same time.

It's easier for all armies to attack in summer - as SU found out in Finland. SU didn't know about Germany's winter performance (or lack of it) in summer 1941 - only, that Germany was still having war in the west.

 

Karjala you live in fantasy land filled with double standards. I will no longer waist my time best of luck with whatever...

PS,
Afghanistan occurred in the Soviet times, Chechnya is an internal problem and Eurpope has already stated that Georgia started the war

Take care

 

Stalins mistake was he did trust Hitler to an extent, but mostly he thought Hitler would act rationaly. Chamberlain realized too late that Hitler was not rational and Stalin should have realized it also.

 

I find this ultimate evil discussion hilarious. Both, Russians and Germans, were very much evil but I don't think you can actually measure which one was worse.

 

I cannot quite bring myself to call the debate hilarious, but I can agree that choosing is difficult, just not impossible. In Hitler's realm What you were meant life or death, In Stalin's domain, What you Chose to be determined your fate. This does not make Stalin a saint or even a reasonably decent person, he was a monster, just not a thoughtless one as Hitler was.

 

"Double standards"? I don't understand what you mean by this. I use the same standards e.g. for Germany and USSR.

The federation of Russia has officially declared to be the successor of USSR. Therefore it doesn't matter if something has happened at the soviet times or not - especially when Russia has not apologised for most of the criminal soviet doings.

"Internal problem"! That's exactly what all dictatorships tell when murdering their "citizens". Checnya is nation with the same rights to get her independence as well as all the other nations enslaved by SU/Russia - e.g. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc.

Georgia "started" only the final episode in that conflict which started already at the collapse of SU. Russia has occupied parts of Georgia for almost 20 years before that war. Russia and her local puppets had launched continuous provocative attacks on rest of Georgia - not to mention the ethnic cleansings of ethnic Georgians. Georgian troops did not cross Georgian borders, Russian troops - which were waiting for their attack "with their motors running" - did.

This is however not about WW2, so on my part I will not continue this conversation about Georgia here.

I understand that you run out of arguments. That's ok, don't worry.

 

I understand what you mean but unfortunately can't agree with you. In Stalin's realm what you were meant life or death too.

If you were a relative of an "enemy of the people" it didn't matter, what you chose. You were an enemy too. Also if you were of certain nationality you were an enemy - regardless of your choices or doings. "Enemy nationalities" included e.g. the Finns and Karelians - well before the war.

 

A question, did all the Finns and Karelians within Russian contol find themselves sent to Death Camps?

 

No - but neither did all the jews within German control.

In SU certain nationalities could all be transported to a far away camps - only reason being the nationality - in addition of mass killings of course. Harsh transportation and living conditions, hunger, diseases and hard labour caused "normally" death rates of about 50 %.

I can't see any great fundamental difference in policies between Germany and SU.

 

Found this earlier post having some errors.

As a matter of fact Finnish army DID stop by it's own will - at least at Karelian Isthmus, Syväri/Svir river and Rukajärvi (towards Sorokka/Byelomorsk). Of course if there hadn't been any resistance Finland could have continued. Of course the soviet defence was one factor but it alone was not strong enough to have caused the Finnish advance to stop.

This is also definitely not true. To occupy/liberate(!) is not the same as to annex. Finland DID NOT annex Eastern Karelia at any point, only the part of Finland SU had robbed before. If somebody claims this kind of bull* there needs to be some evidence shown (which is impossible).

 

Going through old posts...

"Securing Leningrad" -rubbish was only smoke to the eyes of the world and the Finnish negotiators in 1939. Leningrad did not need any securing from the Finnish side - which Stalin knew perfectly well. Stalin's aim was to get ALL of Finland. When this didn't work out, he had to settle for "securing Leningrad".