Finnish Winter War

And continuation war.......

http://www.silentwall.com/ContinuationWar.html

 

I see, so I now have to ask Kai :lol:

 

The 1 million incl KIA, MIA and wounded is for Winter War alone. Of this the 300,000 are the approximated number of dead Red Army soldiers in Winter war.

 

Did many of your relatives serve in the wars ?

What did they do ?

 

A few interesting reports on the Winter war I found on a site, not sure how accurate they are.


People's Commissar of Defense, K. E. Voroshilov, figured they could knock out Finland in roughly twelve days. Just looking at the numbers, it seems reasonable: Russia had 171 million people to Finland's 3.5 million. If Russia just threw enough bodies at Finland, trained or not, it would fall.

Many of the Russians didn't have an hour of training before getting shipped off to fight in in what was believed to be the coldest Finnish winter in over a hundred years.

Anticipating the harsh winter, the Finns spent much of the autumn of 1939 destroying bridges, roads, houses and barns that had taken a generation to build so the Russians would have no shelter during their march. Indeed, while much is made of Russia's love for the scorched earth policy, it appears the scrappy Finns had a few things to teach them.

The abandoned villages were not hospitable even in ruins... mines were left in haystacks, under outhouse seats, ...underneath dead chickens and abandoned sleds. The village wells were poisoned, or, if time and chemicals were lacking, fouled with horse manure. Floating mines underneath newly-frozen lakes blasted ice from under Russian ranks to sink them.

The list of Soviet failings was long and comprehensive. The troops wore olive drab or khaki uniforms, their tanks were painted black, and they carried heavy field stoves that sent thick plumes of black smoke visible for miles. Not a super idea for hiding in the snow.

While Finnish field doctors knew, for example, that morphine would freeze in the cold unless stored in the mouth or armpit, their Russian counterparts scratched their heads as their wounded howled in pain. So great were the casualties that hospitals in Leningrad filled to capacity early in the invasion; soon after, mile-long lengths of trains wound their way as far as Moscow, windows covered with curtains to hide curious passersby from the hideous sight of the frostbitten, the bleeding, the wounded and the dying.

Finland's antitank forces endured a 70% mortality rate, but had no shortage of volunteers.

While cleaning up, a Finnish officer muttered to a photojournalist, "The wolves will eat well this year." After the "victory", a Russian officer muttered, "Well, we've won just enough land to bury our dead."

 

SOunds like in places in the article there has been someone´s imagination in wild use.

For instance the area in Karelian isthmus was widely populated by Karelian people. So you don´t go burning their houses and blowing up their bridges months before the war or they cannot live there. Also more northernly there were only forests and lakes and not very many roads either.

I don´t even think we had mines that much to use. Several Finnish soldiers had to fight with their own clothes on in Winter War and just the cocard of the Finnish army put on their hats. They also had brought their own guns...

Finnish AT troops? Well, if the main weapon was the Molotov cocktail then I guess you can call them the " AT troops".

The main problem for the Soviets was that they expected to come into a land that would welcome it. The Soviet strategy also played into our hands as well as the narrow roads and thick forests, and the snow and cold. One of the most important tactical failures must have been the co-operation of infantry and tanks. Once the Finns had shot the Soviet infantry away the Soviet tanks simply withdrew back to the own lines and did not try to push through the lines. Then again our soldiers had nice tricks for any tanks that got though.

But to put it truly simply 1. Wrong tactics 2. Wrong time of year

 

Interesting points and I would have to overall agree. Kai since you are from Finland I would very much like to hear your opinion on a couple of matters. 1. Do you believe that the Stalin wanted full occupation Finland the reason I ask is because in Russians believe that Stalin only wanted to push the border back for the security of St. Petersburg. I would love to hear what you think. 2. Would you consider the current relations with Russia on a upward or downward slope? From what I understand the relations have much improved but once again since you are from Finland your answer poses great interest and relivence.

 

Sloniksp,

actually ( how did I forget...) there´s one point that proves beyond doubt that Stalin wanted to conquer Finland. That is the " Terijoki Government". Stalin informed during early December 1939 that this was the only government of Finland that he would discuss peace terms with in the future. A puppet government of Finnish communists this was a bad political move from Stalin. Especially once the war did not go Stalin´s way it turned into a joke, really.

http://www.answers.com/topic/finnish-democratic-republic



Otto Wille signing the pact with Molotov, Stalin etc.

No 2

Yes, I do think we will have better relations with Russia in the future. Actually I think our country is already "conquered" by Soviets as everywhere I go I hear Russian every day ...Several rich people from Russia have bought houses,mansions etc over here.

 

Kai,

Thanks for your quick reply. For your first reply on Russia trying to conquer Finland, one can argue that after WW2 Russia could of accomplished this by setting up a communist regime in Finland after liberating the country but did not infact the same thing happend in Austria. Would you consider this a valid argument for not wanting to actually conquer all of Finland?

yes also I have heard that a lot of Russians travel to Finland especially Helsinki cause its so close and vise versa.

 

Yes, I do know that Stalin could have made another go and win this time after Germany was beaten. I don´t know why he did not try but then again I´m just happy he did not.

And back in 1940 AFTER the Winter War I reckon old Adolf did stop Stalin from attacking :

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Hitler-Molotov%20Meetings.htm

"Molotov replied that the Soviet Government considered it as its duty definitively to settle and clarify the Finnish question. No new agreements were needed for that. The old German-Russian agreement assigned Finland to the Russian sphere of influence.

In conclusion the Führer stated on this point that Germany did not desire any war in the Baltic Sea and that she urgently needed Finland as a supplier of nickel and lumber."

and...

"When the Führer replied that he could only repeat that there must be no war with Finland, because such a conflict might have far-reaching repercussions..."

and..

"He (the Führer) wanted to end the European War, and he could only repeat that in view of the uncertain attitude of Sweden a new war in the Baltic would mean a strain on German-Russian relations with unforeseeable consequences.."

 

Excellent points......but my major question is if Stalin could of as you say invaded Finland but didnt,after WW2.....might this mean that he really had no intention of conquering the whole of Finland to begin with? could it be that maybe Stalin only did want to push the border back a little further to protect St. petersburg with a buffer Zone? after all St. Petersburg being Russias second largest city was only 40 miles from the Finish border.Cant this infact be used as a legitimate point for an open discussion on Stalin not wanting to conquer Finland as a whole?

 

The point is also that the German threat was gone after WW2 which was a major factor mentioned in the early talks for the Karelian question in 1939. Even if there was a pact with Stalin and Hitler the Germans were considered the threat in 1939 and not the Allied. But then again Churchill did have dreams of sending the RN to visit the Baltic see and maybe the Gulf of Finland as well...

Also in 1939 the artillery range was considered the reason why the border should be moved. In 1945 with new weapons actually you´d have to make new changes to the borders to protect Leningrad and even that might not help. ( rockets etc )

----------

Also, if Stalin only wanted the buffer zone for Leningrad and was forced to take it why did the Red Army attack all along the front in Nov-Dec 1939?

 

Found this interesting.............

Finnish four-man Molotov cocktail crews destroyed nearly 2000 tanks. The Soviet tanks had an extra 50 gallon gas tank on the back end of the tank near the engine air vents. The tanks were noted for their poor maintenance and excess grease and oil in the engine compartment. The tank would be allowed to penetrate the tactical wire. One man with a log would attempt to jam the tracks while the two Molotov Cocktail men would throw their weapons on the back end of the tank. The gasoline and alcohol would drip into the engine compartment where heat would ignite the mixture and the engine compartment would burst into flames. This would in turn ignite the 50 gallon gas tank on the back of the tank and create tremendous heat inside the tank. The tank crew would attempt to escape and the man with a sub machine gun would kill the crew. Casualties among the Molotov cocktail crews were about 75 per cent.

 

Because it is sensible, that's what you would do if you had the means and inclination and were in charge. One of my standard moves when playing Barbarossa with the Russians was a large paratroop drop (with what?) in Rovaniemi to shut off the entire north.

 

Sorry for asking Za but in real life ( in 1941 ) how soon would you expect the other forces to get to Rovaniemi and how many paratroopers would still be alive by then?? The main reason the Germans did not get anywhere ( to Murmansk that is ) in Lapland was the roadless forests etc. Easy to defend both ways. Tanks could not be used. So your paratroopers in Rovaniemi would simply be destroyed there, I think, in real life 1941.




This is what the Forest Lapland looks like and as you can see not good for "blitzkrieg".

More pretty Lapland pics:

http://www.maion.com/photography/lapland/index_fi.html

 

Kai, I forgot the tongue-in-cheek emoticon First of all there would be no real paratroopers, second they should take more than enough supplies with them 'cos they wouldn't be getting any at all at any time! That's the beauty of bad wargames and what-ifs, you take one false premise at face value and then construct an alternate reality.

Militarily crazy, but a pretty country, no doubt at all, thanks for the pics!

 

Also Kai attacking along the whole front would decrease the the chances of being encircled by the enemy. But then again this war is always going to be desputed.

Also when a border is only 40 miles away it might take a foreing nation 2 hours to advance if it is 400 miles it could take months if not more. You are correct in regards to artillery however it takes an army to capture the city not just bombs or shells as it was proven in the brutal 900 day siege when the Germans wanted to shell the city into submission.

 

More info on the Molotov cocktail etc in Winter War:

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/OTHER_AT_WEAPONS1.htm

and the movie you should see:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000646UN?tag2=imdb-button

 

Thanks for the link Kai

 

ah, the molotov cocktail...one of my favorite incinidary devices during the war, and even today...lol