Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia-finland clashes of ww2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Russia-finland clashes of ww2

    if someone wants to know an elected govt sided with nazi germany with ww2, its Finland.
    also helsinki was around three cpitals of belligerents in europe , apart from moscow and london, that was never occupied.

    Finland had declared independence from the russian empire during their collapse in ww1.

    Russia in 1939 demanded areas around the karelian isthmus and lake ladago to secure areas before leningrad. Talks broke down. The winter war broke out. After some unimpressive performances, the red army finally imposed its will after 3 months through overhwelming forces.

    Finland had to cede around 10% of territory inthe moscow peace treaty.

    The attack was deemed illegal and the soviets were expelled from the league of nations.

    Finland then joined in the nazi attack on the soviets but did not proceed and assist germany beyond their area of interest.

    they had to contend with the soviets for three years before containing their offensive at tali ihantala.The terms of the moscow treaty was reimposed though they didnot suffer the fate of poland due to their military prowess.

    was it really a necessary war? is it stalin's famed paranoia at work?

    There are two epic finnish films regarding this war- talivosota (1989) which was really good and tali ihanatala(2007) - not as impressive.
    Last edited by YoungIndia; 06 Sep 10,, 08:14. Reason: edt

  • #2
    When you say Nazi Germany in 2010 you mean a slur.If you would had said that in 1940 you meant the greatest power in Europe.Everyone knew who was Stalin (some have conveniently forgotten in the meantime).Nobody (probably not even the Nazis themselves) knew what Nazism was in 1940.

    URSS attacked Finalnd and took its land.Finland was right to wage war to get it back.The aggressor is clear in this case.

    Talvisota is a good movie,indeed.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by YoungIndia View Post

      Russia in 1939 demanded areas around the karelian isthmus and lake ladago to secure areas before leningrad. Talks broke down. The winter war broke out. After some unimpressive performances, the red army finally imposed its will after 3 months through overhwelming forces.

      Finland had to cede around 10% of territory inthe moscow peace treaty.

      The attack was deemed illegal and the soviets were expelled from the league of nations.

      Finland then joined in the nazi attack on the soviets but did not proceed and assist germany beyond their area of interest.

      they had to contend with the soviets for three years before containing their offensive at tali ihantala.The terms of the moscow treaty was reimposed though they didnot suffer the fate of poland due to their military prowess.

      was it really a necessary war? is it stalin's famed paranoia at work?

      There are two epic finnish films regarding this war- talivosota (1989) which was really good and tali ihanatala(2007) - not as impressive.
      1) There was the First Soviet-Finnish war (Heimosodat) in 1918-1920, which was initiated by Finnland and finished by Treaty of Tartu (Russia ceded some territories).
      2) Then there was the Soviet-Finnish conflict (1921-1922), initiated by Finland (again) and finished by Moscow Agreement (tie).
      3) Then there was Winter War (Talvisota) in 1939-40, initiated by the Soviets and finished by the Treaty of Moscow (Finnland ceded vast territories).
      4) Then was Continuation War (1941-44), actually initiated by Finland (by deployment of German troops, prepared to attack Soviet Union) and finished by Moscow Armistice.

      Even if we take in account only two last Soviet-Finnish conflicts (1939-40 and 1941-44) we can see that both sides violated their international obligations (Treaty of Tartu and Treaty of Moscow correspondently). And as we know two wrongs don't make a right, so Finland was obviously an agressor in 1941. These facts plus involvement of Finnish Defence Forces in the Siege of Leningrad (up to 1.5 mln casualties among civilians) were the strong moral grounds for subsequent "finlandization".
      Last edited by Zampolit; 06 Sep 10,, 18:47.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mihais View Post
        When you say Nazi Germany in 2010 you mean a slur.If you would had said that in 1940 you meant the greatest power in Europe.
        but the potential "greatest power" was always going to be USSR with its superior manpower advantage,


        Nobody (probably not even the Nazis themselves) knew what Nazism was in 1940.
        i don't think so.

        Just strategic incompetence.hitler had laid out his racial worldview in mein kampf and he clearly stated the function of the state was racial purity and that the master race should not mix with inferior races.his extreme dislike of jews and other "subhumans" were well known.what more do you need.

        even before 1930, it was clear what he was.

        During nazi rule, there were euthanasia killingss,nuremberg laws, kristallnacht,forced immigration of jews,concentration camps for politcal opponents and undesirables.It was all there.

        Infact indian leader Nehru regrettedbemoaned that germany is turning towards nazism as early as 1933!. so some people could see already. Shirer's accounts also say the same thing.

        URSS attacked Finalnd and took its land.Finland was right to wage war to get it back.The aggressor is clear in this case.
        This is on the basis of "enemy of my enemy is my friend". that's fine.

        Comment


        • #5
          You're missing the point.The Commies were accomplished mass murderers by 1940 and everyone with a half brain and acces to newspapers knew about.
          Of course it depends who you're asking.If you ask the Eastern European(Finland included) nations that viewed the Soviets as the existential threat,Nazi peculiarities such as expulsion of the German Jews or the burning of books go into the background.If you ask some occupied nation,the fact the the GERMANS (not the Nazi party) are the enemy makes everything else secondary.

          but the potential "greatest power" was always going to be USSR with its superior manpower advantage


          That's why every ''expert'' thought the Germans will crush USSR in a heartbeat.

          This is on the basis of "enemy of my enemy is my friend". that's fine.

          The only reason Finland and the rest went alongside Germany.In an interview with neutral journalists in mid 1942,Marshall Antonescu said that Romania is alongside the German Reich against USSR,neutral in the war between the Allies and the Germany and is supportive of Western Allies in the war in the Pacific.That was the general mood in Romania as well as in Hungary or Bulgaria.I'm not certain,but Finland's actions make me suspect this was also true for Finland.
          Those who know don't speak
          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Zampolit View Post
            1) There was the First Soviet-Finnish war (Heimosodat) in 1918-1920, which was initiated by Finnland and finished by Treaty of Tartu (Russia ceded some territories).
            2) Then there was the Soviet-Finnish conflict (1921-1922), initiated by Finland (again) and finished by Moscow Agreement (tie).
            3) Then there was Winter War (Talvisota) in 1939-40, initiated by the Soviets and finished by the Treaty of Moscow (Finnland ceded vast territories).
            4) Then was Continuation War (1941-44), actually initiated by Finland (by deployment of German troops, prepared to attack Soviet Union) and finished by Moscow Armistice.

            Even if we take in account only two last Soviet-Finnish conflicts (1939-40 and 1941-44) we can see that both sides violated their international obligations (Treaty of Tartu and Treaty of Moscow correspondently). And as we know two wrongs don't make a right, so Finland was obviously an agressor in 1941. These facts plus involvement of Finnish Defence Forces in the Siege of Leningrad (up to 1.5 mln casualties among civilians) were the strong moral grounds for subsequent "finlandization".

            The FDF never closed the ring on Leningrad.Otherwise the city would have fallen.What do you mean by subsequent "finlandization"?
            You may be technically correct about the treaties,but we both know it's a lawyerish spin.
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mihais View Post
              You're missing the point.The Commies were accomplished mass murderers by 1940 and everyone with a half brain and acces to newspapers knew about.
              .
              I specifically counetred the point you raised -"Nobody knew what nazism meant in 1940".

              Not eax Of course it depends who you're asking.If you ask the Eastern European(Finland included) nations that viewed the Soviets as the existential threat,Nazi peculiarities such as expulsion of the German Jews or the burning of books go into the background.If you ask some occupied nation,the fact the the GERMANS (not the Nazi party) are the enemy makes everything else secondary.
              I understand.

              certainly there was good reason to worry about the threat of export of communist ideology and the occasional territorial demands of stalin.i do not deny it.

              but if one looks at it deeper, nazis were a even bigger threat considering hitler is not the type of person who leaves others alone and was not a man who loved peace.

              he was a supreme leader above morals.he had to work for space in the east so that "aryan race" expands and thrives at the expense of "untermenschen" and even the "superior nordic races" like norway were made to serve german interests.

              This militarist as well as racial ideology made the nazis far more a more multi dimensional threat than the soviets.It boils to who is the lesser of the two evils and to me its certainly not nazi rule.


              i do understand the perspective you talked about.

              but , is it the best decision those countries made ? no.


              That's why every ''expert'' thought the Germans will crush USSR in a heartbeat.
              they were all proved wrong :)



              The only reason Finland and the rest went alongside Germany.
              understandable . but not impeccable or without flaws.

              questions can be raised,

              Even in the Indian case, one of the main leaders subhash chandra bose broke away from the congress party's freedom struggle and allied himself with germany and japan after escaping from india.

              he is still regarded by many indians a patriot with high ideals but his methods of allying himself with fascists divides people.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by YoungIndia View Post
                I specifically counetred the point you raised -"Nobody knew what nazism meant in 1940".
                In the absence of the holocaust the Nazis were just some freaks.If you put in balance the expulsion of Jews with the actual killing of tens of millions then there is no debate.


                Originally posted by YoungIndia View Post
                I understand.

                certainly there was good reason to worry about the threat of export of communist ideology and the occasional territorial demands of stalin.i do not deny it.

                but if one looks at it deeper, nazis were a even bigger threat considering hitler is not the type of person who leaves others alone and was not a man who loved peace.

                he was a supreme leader above morals.he had to work for space in the east so that "aryan race" expands and thrives at the expense of "untermenschen" and even the "superior nordic races" like norway were made to serve german interests.

                This militarist as well as racial ideology made the nazis far more a more multi dimensional threat than the soviets.It boils to who is the lesser of the two evils and to me its certainly not nazi rule.


                i do understand the perspective you talked about.

                but , is it the best decision those countries made ? no.
                As a friend of mine here on WAB once told me,you put hindsight into forethought.Replace Hitler with Stalin and everything you said above holds water equally.For the life of me I can't comprehend how people today try to make justifications by considering Stalin a lesser bastard.They were morally on equal footing(I don't count the victims when we talk about a principle).If we talk about numbers Stalin gets the gold medal.If we talk about killing rate Hitler is the champ.

                Think of this.If Stalin,not Hitler is the one launching a blitzkrieg in the absence of Allied troops on the continent,who's the bigger threat in the long run?A regime that depended on Hitler in person that is likely fall apart at the moment of his death or a regime already consolidated in the previous decades?
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by YoungIndia View Post
                  but the potential "greatest power" was always going to be USSR with its superior manpower advantage,
                  By the time of the batle of stalingrad the SU had lost teritories wich were home of 70 milions people.
                  J'ai en marre.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X