Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there was no Finnish question, how can you explain the Winter War? Stop the Leningrad mumbo jumbo already, there was no threat to it.
Yes, if Ariete were in charge of Finland at that point in time, we all know there would have been no threat to Leningrad.
Unfortunately he was not in charge, and looking at the map, anyone can figure out what danger this close border with Finland presented to Leningrad. One look at the map is enough -
"Army Group North under FeldmarschallWilhelm Ritter von Leeb advanced to Leningrad, its primary objective. Von Leeb's plan called for capturing the city on the move, but due to Hitler's recall of 4th Panzer Group (persuaded by his Chief of General Staff, Franz Halder, to transfer this south to participate in Fedor von Bock's push for Moscow),[19] von Leeb had to lay the city under siege indefinitely after reaching the shores of Lake Ladoga, while trying to complete the encirclement and reaching the Finnish Army under Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim waiting at the Svir River, east of Leningrad.[20]
Finnish military forces were located north of Leningrad, while German forces occupied territories to the south.[21] Both German and Finnish forces had the goal of encircling Leningrad and maintaining the blockade perimeter, thus cutting off all communication with the city and preventing the defenders from receiving any supplies. The Germans planned on lack of food being their chief weapon against the citizens; German scientists had calculated that the city would reach starvation after only a few weeks.[2][20][22][23][24][25]"
"The proximity of the Finnish positions – 33–35 km (21–22 mi) from downtown Leningrad – and the threat of a Finnish attack complicated the defence of the city. At one point the defending Front Commander, Popov, could not release reserves opposing the Finnish forces to be deployed against the Wehrmacht because they were needed to bolster the 23rd Army's defences on the Karelian Isthmus.[47] Mannerheim terminated the offensive on 31 August 1941, when the army had reached the 1939 border. Popov felt relieved, and redeployed two divisions to the German sector on 5 September.[48]"
So there you go, and to say that if it were not for "Soviet attack," Finns would have never cooperated with Germans is plain silly. Practically all of Europe cooperated with German machine, whether it wanted or not, yet "small proud Finland" wouldn't have somehow. Ha-ha. No, Soviet commanders had very good reason to ask ( first) and then to fight for the requested territories.
No I didn't. You simply refuse to accept answers.
Finland was strategically important in the context of the WWII and German attack. Other than that - there is no "Finnish question." It has no any particular value from Russian point of view, and it lays on the way to Sweden. Tell me when Sweden was at war with anyone last time?
Quote:
Miraculously, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia were important. Why wasn't Finland then? Because we stopped Stalin at Tali-Ihantala, and conquering Finland would've been too costful.
There was no "Hungarian question" or "Romanian question" either. Those countries were played as cards under the developing circumstances of the US getting involved in European affairs financially. So Eastern Europe was becoming a "buffer zone" as usual.
I don't think that Soviet commandment was all that interested in Finland from economic point of view - at least at that time. Otherwise the Soviets would have taken over after the war with Germany was done.
Quote:
Stop this Soviet revisionism already. The USSR brutally invaded an innocent country which posed no fear to it. Deal with it.
It's not about "innocence" - it was all about the potential threat to one of the most beautiful and cultural European cities.
Other than that, tklen out of the context of the WWII, there was really no "Finnish question," as there was never "Hungarian question" or "Romanian question." All of it is just a matter of circumstances for Russians. There is such thing however as "Chechen question" for Russia. There is difference you see)))
How big a war were the British and French public willing to support after 970,000 and 1.2 million respective deaths in WWI? Then factor in that they would be fighting yet another war when their existence as independent nations was not under direct threat.
The Soviets could also launch a pretty effective propaganda campaign: "We are not going to invade Poland proper (at least not yet). Instead, we only want to "liberate" Ukrainian and Belarusan territory that is currently occupied by Poland. The people in these territories are not Polish and many don't want to live in Poland (we wont mention that fact that they don't want to live in the USSR either)"
That propaganda would have some basis in truth. Now, the exhausted British and French public would be asked to (democratic societies) take sides in a complex ethnic dispute involving people whose names they cannot pronounce. This could well lead to Britain and France honoring their treaty commitments in a token manner.
Just to say, the Russians also suffered in WW1, the Russians always seem to bear the brunt of it.
Yes, if Ariete were in charge of Finland at that point in time, we all know there would have been no threat to Leningrad.
Unfortunately he was not in charge, and looking at the map, anyone can figure out what danger this close border with Finland presented to Leningrad. One look at the map is enough -
Sorry, having a major city close to a border isn't casus belli.
Quote:
And these were the consequences;
"Army Group North under FeldmarschallWilhelm Ritter von Leeb advanced to Leningrad, its primary objective. Von Leeb's plan called for capturing the city on the move, but due to Hitler's recall of 4th Panzer Group (persuaded by his Chief of General Staff, Franz Halder, to transfer this south to participate in Fedor von Bock's push for Moscow),[19] von Leeb had to lay the city under siege indefinitely after reaching the shores of Lake Ladoga, while trying to complete the encirclement and reaching the Finnish Army under Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim waiting at the Svir River, east of Leningrad.[20]
Finnish military forces were located north of Leningrad, while German forces occupied territories to the south.[21] Both German and Finnish forces had the goal of encircling Leningrad and maintaining the blockade perimeter, thus cutting off all communication with the city and preventing the defenders from receiving any supplies. The Germans planned on lack of food being their chief weapon against the citizens; German scientists had calculated that the city would reach starvation after only a few weeks.[2][20][22][23][24][25]"
"The proximity of the Finnish positions – 33–35 km (21–22 mi) from downtown Leningrad – and the threat of a Finnish attack complicated the defence of the city. At one point the defending Front Commander, Popov, could not release reserves opposing the Finnish forces to be deployed against the Wehrmacht because they were needed to bolster the 23rd Army's defences on the Karelian Isthmus.[47] Mannerheim terminated the offensive on 31 August 1941, when the army had reached the 1939 border. Popov felt relieved, and redeployed two divisions to the German sector on 5 September.[48]"
No, those were the consequences of attacking Finland.
Quote:
So there you go, and to say that if it were not for "Soviet attack," Finns would have never cooperated with Germans is plain silly. Practically all of Europe cooperated with German machine, whether it wanted or not, yet "small proud Finland" wouldn't have somehow. Ha-ha. No, Soviet commanders had very good reason to ask ( first) and then to fight for the requested territories.
'just plain silly'? 'Ha-ha'? These are your... 'arguments'?
Fact - the USSR attacked Finland in an act of naked aggression.
Face - Finland subsequently attacked the USSR, primarily to regain territory seized in the aforementioned naked aggression.
While Finland did participate in attacks beyond regaining its lost territory, it did so in support if its German ally - not to seize territory itself.
Now, as for your 'Practically all of Europe cooperated with German machine', that's utter nonsense. Much of Europe was compelled to do so under military threat. The only powers that participated when they did not have to do so were the expansionist Italy and USSR. The only other ones that did, did so after occupation or threat of attack (such as Hungary). Spain? Portugal? Switzerland? Sweden? Ireland? They did not militarily cooperate with Nazi Germany. They also weren't attacked by the USSR.
But we can go deeper than that. Soviet propaganda during the 1930s endlessly labelled Finland as a threat to the USSR. Soviet troops mobilized along the Finnish border before Finland mobilized its forces. That Stalin was planning on attacking Finland and reabsorbing it into the newly-constituted Russian empire when the opportunity presented itself is glaringly obvious. After the seizure of the Baltic states, the already-implausible threat of the outflanked Finns to the Soviet Union was little less than laughable. Finnish foreign policy throughout the post-WWI era was of neutrality. Furthermore, a look at the Finnish-German relations before the Winter War is telling - after the Nazis came to power, relations soured. The Finnish ambassador was recalled after German moved into Czechoslovakia. And yet you would have us believe that Finland was just waiting for the chance to join a German attack on the Soviet Union?
Even the official Soviet line on the Winter War changed on a regular basis. First, it was to protect the Finnish proletariat from the 'fascist' Finnish regime. Then it was to guard against a supposed Anglo-French-Finnish attack on the USSR. Finally, it was a preemption of the German-Finnish attack that actually occurred - of course, Pravda conveniently never mentioned that the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact acknowledged that the Soviets could attack Finland so far as Nazi Germany was concerned. The Soviets flailed about for an excuse to rationalize their blatant aggression in much the same manner that you're flailing about for something, anything to justify it.
Anyway, the initial Finnish reaction after the Winter War was a defensive alliance of the Scandinavian countries, which fell apart when Germany seized Denmark and Norway. The Finns tried to work with Britain, who showed little interest. Only then did Finland finally turn to Germany. And, again, you'd have us believe that the Finns were itching to work with Germany all along.
In other words, the notion that Finland would have worked with Germany regardless of the Soviet attack on Finland is complete nonsense. There's not a shred of evidence to support that thesis, and it runs completely counter to Finnish behavior in the inter-war period.
Just to say, the Russians also suffered in WW1, the Russians always seem to bear the brunt of it.
Very true, but Stalin did not care the suffering of the Russian people, nor the suffering of anybody besides himself for that matter.
Thus, while the democratic British and French needed to take the opinions of their war weary populations into consideration, the totalitarian Stalin did not and could gamble accordingly.
Having not just some "major city," but national treasure so close to potentially hostile country indeed justified first negotiations and further - attack on Finland. Finland's proximity to Leningrad was a culprit at that point, if not for that - it probably wouldn't have been touched at all. ( It all depends of course how the Soviet military commandment saw their maps in terms of potential threats.)
Quote:
No, those were the consequences of attacking Finland.
'just plain silly'? 'Ha-ha'? These are your... 'arguments'?
Fact - the USSR attacked Finland in an act of naked aggression.
Attacked because of what? What was the reason for it? Because the USSR didn't have enough of its own territories, or because Finland had some strategic exit to Baltic Sea, or what were exactly the reasons for "naked aggression?" What were the reasons that Stalin would have craved that land?
Quote:
Face - Finland subsequently attacked the USSR, primarily to regain territory seized in the aforementioned naked aggression.
While Finland did participate in attacks beyond regaining its lost territory, it did so in support if its German ally - not to seize territory itself.
Hello, and when I've said that Russians could foresee that Finland was going to be a potential ally of Germany in the upcoming conflict, and their concern for safety of Leningrad was fully justified, you found that argument funny somehow?
Quote:
Now, as for your 'Practically all of Europe cooperated with German machine', that's utter nonsense. Much of Europe was compelled to do so under military threat.
Who cares whether some cooperated willingly and other were compelled to do so? The fact remained that that they were still cooperating, and Russians had to deal with all that.
Quote:
The only powers that participated when they did not have to do so were the expansionist Italy and USSR. The only other ones that did, did so after occupation or threat of attack (such as Hungary). Spain? Portugal? Switzerland? Sweden? Ireland? They did not militarily cooperate with Nazi Germany. They also weren't attacked by the USSR.
Sweden was "neutral" during the WWII? Yeah right, on the paper it was.
"Swedish iron ore was an important economic factor in the European Theatre of World War II. Both the Allies and the Third Reich were keen on the control of the mining district in northernmost Sweden, surrounding the mining towns of Gällivare and Kiruna. The importance of this issue increased after other sources were cut off from Germany by the British sea blockade during the Battle of the Atlantic. Both the planned Anglo-French support of Finland in the Winter War, and the following German occupation of Denmark and Norway (Operation Weserübung) were to a large extent motivated by the wish to deny their respective enemies iron critical for wartime production of steel.[1]
Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was particularly concerned about Swedish exports of iron ore to Germany, and pushed for the British government to take military action to end the trade. From the beginning of the war Churchill tried to persuade his cabinet colleagues to send a British fleet into the Baltic Sea to stop shipping reaching Germany from the two Swedish iron ore ports, Luleå and Oxelösund."
Overall, you can read more on the (not so) neutral countries during the WWII here, if you are that naif ( or pretending to be naif) thinking that Russians were not against a huge, finely-tuned machine that was comprised of different European countries, but just Germany alone. And when Russians were looking at what has been stacked against them, you bet they were trying to take preventive steps as much as they could. Because they knew that they were the ultimate target of that machine, particularly that they were marked for total annihilation.
Quote:
But we can go deeper than that. Soviet propaganda during the 1930s endlessly labelled Finland as a threat to the USSR.
And indeed it was. Not as separate entity as "Finland," but as potential part of the mentioned above military machine.
Quote:
Soviet troops mobilized along the Finnish border before Finland mobilized its forces. That Stalin was planning on attacking Finland and reabsorbing it into the newly-constituted Russian empire when the opportunity presented itself is glaringly obvious. After the seizure of the Baltic states, the already-implausible threat of the outflanked Finns to the Soviet Union was little less than laughable. Finnish foreign policy throughout the post-WWI era was of neutrality.
Look above regarding all that "neutrality."
Quote:
Furthermore, a look at the Finnish-German relations before the Winter War is telling - after the Nazis came to power, relations soured. The Finnish ambassador was recalled after German moved into Czechoslovakia. And yet you would have us believe that Finland was just waiting for the chance to join a German attack on the Soviet Union?
No, I would make you believe that once Germany started the invasion of the USSR, Finland would have immediately announced counter-action in favor of the USSR. Now this sounds far more believable, does it?
Quote:
Even the official Soviet line on the Winter War changed on a regular basis. First, it was to protect the Finnish proletariat from the 'fascist' Finnish regime. Then it was to guard against a supposed Anglo-French-Finnish attack on the USSR. Finally, it was a preemption of the German-Finnish attack that actually occurred - of course, Pravda conveniently never mentioned that the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact acknowledged that the Soviets could attack Finland so far as Nazi Germany was concerned. The Soviets flailed about for an excuse to rationalize their blatant aggression in much the same manner that you're flailing about for something, anything to justify it.
The changing official Soviet line only proves that Stalin ( and his generals) were not all that interested in dealing with Finland - they were rather forced to deal with it under the circumstances for a reason I already described. And that's why the story line, the invented stories were going back and forth.
Quote:
Anyway, the initial Finnish reaction after the Winter War was a defensive alliance of the Scandinavian countries, which fell apart when Germany seized Denmark and Norway. The Finns tried to work with Britain, who showed little interest. Only then did Finland finally turn to Germany.
So? Russians were initially trying to work with Britain and France too, but they showed little interest as well, after which Russia had to turn to Germany.
Quote:
And, again, you'd have us believe that the Finns were itching to work with Germany all along.
I'm sure part of Finnish population was "itching to work with Germany" all along, part - not at all. But whatever it was, the end result would have been the same - Finland would have cooperated with Germany up to certain degree, as other European countries did ( including the "neutral ones" ) so Russian concern for Leningrad was justified under the circumstances.
Quote:
In other words, the notion that Finland would have worked with Germany regardless of the Soviet attack on Finland is complete nonsense. There's not a shred of evidence to support that thesis, and it runs completely counter to Finnish behavior in the inter-war period.
Sure, sure - "not a shred of evidence." As much "no shred" as the "neutrality" of other European countries.
More than one million (1,600, 000) dead in this one battle, and in the name of what?
With no "Stalin" in sight by the way, yet all Americans can think about is "Stalin" when it comes to Russians.
More than one million (1,600, 000) dead in this one battle, and in the name of what?
With no "Stalin" in sight by the way, yet all Americans can think about is "Stalin" when it comes to Russians.
The Brusilov offensive failed because of the poor leadership and logistics, something that plagued the Russian army ever since the West made strides in both areas in the mid-XIX century and Russia never quite caught up.
In this particular case IIRC it was the animosity between Brusilov and another general that did not provide him the required support even if this meant losing the battle. (I am on a phone and can't check Wiki at the moment).
A big problem of the Russian army - and to much lesser extent the Austrian army - was that most high ranking officers were promoted based on their standing at the court rather than their abilities.
Combined with the general attitude of the nobility that still saw Russian masses as little more than inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder, the massive losses were an unfortunate norm.
Having not just some "major city," but national treasure so close to potentially hostile country indeed justified first negotiations and further - attack on Finland. Finland's proximity to Leningrad was a culprit at that point, if not for that - it probably wouldn't have been touched at all. ( It all depends of course how the Soviet military commandment saw their maps in terms of potential threats.)
No, it did not justify an attack on Finland.
Can you imagine how many wars would break out because a major city was located to another country's border? Should Turkey invade Bulgaria? Should Belgium attack France or the Netherlands invade Belgium or Denmark invade southern Sweden? Should Argentina invade Uruguay or Russia invade North Korea or India invade Bangladesh? The list is endless.
The problems are many. Who decides what a major city is? Who decides what a "national treasure" is? How far from the border can a major city or "national treasure" can be used to justify an invasion of a neighboring country? 25, 50, 100, 200 miles?
This excuse can be used to justify virtual endless wars all over the planet.
The Brusilov offensive failed because of the poor leadership and logistics, something that plagued the Russian army ever since the West made strides in both areas in the mid-XIX century and Russia never quite caught up.
What makes you think that Brusilov's offensive "failed?" It didn't.
"Brusilov's operation achieved its original goal of forcing Germany to halt its attack on Verdun and transfer considerable forces to the East. It also broke the back of the Austro-Hungarian army, which suffered the majority of the casualties. Afterward, the Austro-Hungarian army increasingly had to rely on the support of the German army for its military successes."
And as far as "leadership and logistics" - here it goes again;
"The irony was that other Russian commanders did not realize the potential of the tactics that Brusilov had devised. After seeing the success of these new tactics, similar tactics began to be used on the Western Front by the French and Germans - who utilized "storm troopers" to great effect in the 1918 offensive - and slightly later the British, although given the higher force-space ratio in the West, much greater concentration of artillery fire was needed to make progress."
I mean sooner or later Russian generals would have figured out that one of their own devised yet again the new successful tactics that they should follow.
( Oh I see, you were on the phone and couldn't check on all that.)
But that's not the point I wanted to make. The point I wanted to make was precisely this -
Quote:
Combined with the general attitude of the nobility that still saw Russian masses as little more than inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder, the massive losses were an unfortunate norm.
It was not Stalin that saw "Russian masses as little more than inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder" - or rather he was not unique in his approach as Americans see it. As you can see yourself, this kind of approach to "Russian masses" takes roots in much earlier times, but this is easily overlooked, since Russian nobility was of a "friendly kind," supporting private property and all. It's only when the new leadership of Russia became hostile to American institutions in its core - the private property and all, that's when "ruthless tyrant" ( i.e. Stalin) became known for his particular indifference to the fate of his troops.
As I've mentioned before, there is a reason behind the similarities between the Russian Tsarists Empire and American colonial South.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
