armyreal.com - Forums

Go Back   ArmyReal.com Forums > Military Discussions > Armies of the World
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #21  
Old 08-07-2005, 07:37 AM
torspo[fin]'s Avatar
torspo[fin] torspo[fin] is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,843
Default

added some wiki links.. thease contain much information about the WW2 in the north europe.

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War]Wikipedia - Winter war[/URL]

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War]Wikipedia - Continuation War[/URL]
Reply With Quote

  #22  
Old 08-10-2005, 10:32 PM
kurusch's Avatar
kurusch kurusch is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas
People tend to think that WW2 was straight forward .Good against Evil .The truth is we didn't expect to find those death camps at Belsen ,Dachau etc .Its only with hindsight that we can say we fought evil .How was Finland to know when nobody else did...........
I dissagree. Hitlers intentions to European Jews was well known long before the war. The best that was expected was that the Jews would be packed off to somewhere like Madagascar penniless. We didn't engage Hitler because of the Jews, that's true, but we knew that a Nazi Europe would turn back to the dark ages.
__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.'
Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 08-10-2005, 10:53 PM
kurusch's Avatar
kurusch kurusch is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torspo[fin]
nope.. actually we lost the whole karelian ishtmus etc. to the Soviets.



since USSR doesn't exist anymore, we have been wondering why karelian ishtmus
are now part of Russian federation.. there are some active pro-karelian groups
in Finland who want the restoration of former borders.

personally i dont see the old karelia worth a dispute.. under the soviet rule,
Karelia didnt evolve at all. all the buildings are in bad shape, and the roads
are horrible. not too much Finnish relative people there anymore aither...
many of those who didn't evacuate to Finland, were sent to gulags or/and siberia..
racial purification of sorts... there used to be many Fenno-ugric tribes.. the Finns
being the biggest one.. there are not too many left anymore..
we knew about Stalins purges.. and send the children to safty Sweden in case we
could not hold on our against the Soviet onslaught. then we prepared for war.
since we were fighting for the existance of our people in a sense.. troop morale
was.. well very high.

Winterwar casualtys:

[URL=http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5985]Finnish losses[/URL]

[URL=http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5952]Soviet losses[/URL]

You might find this interesting Torspo. It's a little bit old, it mentions Clinton, but still relevent. I've had to edit it because this site restricts the number of words posted. The full text is here: [url]http://www.geocities.com/ojoronen/ALIE.HTM[/url]


'"Russian Speaking Forces have Wanted Karelia and Finland for Seven Hundred Years. WWII: Defence of Leningrad: The Greatest Opportunity in History for Imperial Soviet Expansionism"



"The only great power which could have earlier been a potential threat to Leningrad - well, in that case presumably along the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland - namely Germany, has concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, which means that there exists no threat against the Soviet Union and Leningrad from there - without considering the overall present importance of Leningrad to the Soviet Union. And the new Soviet naval and air bases in Liepaja (Libau), Ventpils (Windau), Hiiumaa, Saaremaa and Paldiski permit, as disclosed by the Soviets, the Soviet Union to rule the Baltic Sea and thus the Gulf of Finland and up to the Gulf's farthest recess in front of Leningrad.

A request for negotiations with the Soviet government was received on the 5th of October. For over a month friendly discussions were carried out between the Finnish and Soviet Cabinets concerning concrete political issues of certain territorial exchanges to "improve the security of Leningrad."

Judging from the present facts, all arguments about threats to Leningrad from the Finnish territory are very difficult to understand." Prime Minister A.K. Cajander on the 23rd of November 1939, at Helsinki Fair Hall


Suomi Beauty - in 1939 Stalin told the Finns that he was coming to "Liberate" them from the lying capitalists - in this song.

Points to consider:
1) The Russian attack on Finland in 1939 and again in 1944 was unnecessary for the protection of Leningrad as Stalin stated based on available evidence.
2) The idea that neutral Finland would attack Leningrad was absurd.
3) The "threat to Leningrad" was only theoretical, a red herring, part of Stalin's overall plan to control the Baltic by annexing Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which he thought belonged to the Soviet sphere of influence. Like the charges against the millions of Stalin's victims, it was a bogus accusation.
4) All the Red Army sacrifices and territorial gains of 1939-40 were wiped out in 1941 in several weeks by Finnish forces who took back land that was theirs in the first place. Taking back Karelia was just. If Finland broke a treaty made under duress, it was because of necessity, and Soviets broke Baltic treaties first anyway. Apparently Roosevelt and Churchill did not agree now that they had joined Stalin.
5) A threat of attack accross the Finnish-Russian border only existed from the Russian side in 1939, because of the Russian-German treaty. If there was a threat from Germany through Finland, Germany would have attacked Russia from Finland during the Winter War or Operation Barbarossa. This did not happen, except in the far north, certainly not against Leningrad. Furthermore, if Finland wanted to attack Leningrad with Germany, which it didn't, there would be no need for Germany to enter Finland. But Russia was involved in the Vyborg siege, just across the border in Finland. So the proximity of the border was a demonstrated threat to which side? Finland.
6) Finland never posed a threat to Leningrad even when it was in its power to do so in 1941- 44. Especially when it was under siege by Hitler, Finland kept the Murmansk food supply line south of Svir and over the Ladoga ice to Leningrad open, thereby proving that no threat existed from Finland. The only excuse Stalin had for attacking Finland did not materialize. The Allies continued to espouse the Leningrad threat idea put forward by Stalin - a serious error, the consequence of which was born by Finland. The Soviet soldier was not told the excuse for attacking. He was told totally different "reasons" which indicates that Marshal Stalin did not think his official excuse would fly with the men. Many history maps still show Leningrad being attacked from the South by Germany, and from the Karelian Isthmus by Finns, which is false.
This resulted in the wrongful, sanctioned loss of Karelia to the Soviet Union in 1944, an act of great immorality against the gallant Finnish people. The reason for these mistakes by Churchill and Roosevelt was lack of first-hand information about the Finns, (much of which he got via Stalin), Baltic countries, Soviet Union and Stalin, Eastern European people, their histories, and not understanding or believing in the threat of Communism and its stated goals of world domination, and signing a treaty which precluded the signing of a separate peace. Because of the Treaty, even though England and the United States had wanted to take Finland out of the war in 1943, it could not happen. This forced Finland to take aid from the only source available. How is it that Stalin's will prevailed over the combined will of Churchill and Roosevelt?
7) Stalin and Hitler's motives in 1939 were simply to acquire as much land as possible, plain to anyone with common sense, (lacking in many government leaders as usual) and once begun in Finland would continue (based on evidence from the Baltic states) until the whole country was annexed, as per Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev's testimony after the war. There was no evidence that Stalin would deal with Finland any differently than the Baltics earlier in the year, which were tricked into giving up their independence. (Isn't trickery the usual method of conquest. Just look at the American Indians)
Some of the reasons the Russians have come up with to rationalize annexing Karelia:

1) The border is too close to Leningrad: defensive requirements.
2) Viipuri (Vyborg) is an old Russian city occupied by the Finns.
3) They are attacking Finland in order to help the Finnish people.
4) Finland is really a part of Russia.
5) Finland is a Fascist country.
6) Karelia is a Russian province.
7) More access to the Baltic.

8) The validity of Stalin's actions against Finland should be examined in context of the other things he was doing against freedom and democracy: instituting slave labor, murdering millions of people, using extreme brutality in dealing with people of countries annexed prior to and after attacking Finland. His "holyer than thou" attitude. Also, after the Winter War, Stalin was not satisfied with the territory he acquired, he almost immediately resumed his territorial demands, now he wanted Petsamo too, plus many other concessions.
9) Russia paid for attacking Finland with operation Barbarossa, which was a direct result of Russia's poor showing in the Winter War against Finland.

10) The demand for land by Hitler and Stalin were analogous in their motives, coordinated in timing, and both had no legitimate, moral basis whatsoever.
11) Countries that complied with Stalin's requests ceased to exist.
12) On these basis, Finland made the correct decision to resist the same evil that overcame the Baltic countries, while Churchill and Roosevelt succumbed to Stalin's reptilian spell and willingly gave up Eastern Europe to the shackles of communism, a cold-blooded thing to do.
How lucky can you get. You are trying to take over the world, and you get assistance from England and the United States! Are the people who lost land to the Soviets during WWII within their rights to ask for it back? Would the United States and Britain agree that they were wrong in letting Russia take Karelia? Eastern Europe? Why or why not? email us with your opinion

.
'
__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.'
Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.
Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 08-11-2005, 09:20 AM
torspo[fin]'s Avatar
torspo[fin] torspo[fin] is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,843
Default

yep.. interesting it is.
i'd say its correct history too.

Its sad How the Soviet "corrected" history have influenced the western allies.
but such is life. i have heared that there are pices of that falsified history
presented as a fact even in the universitys in Brittain.

"Winners write the history"
Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 08-11-2005, 09:55 AM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torspo[fin]
yep.. interesting it is.
i'd say its correct history too.

Its sad How the Soviet "corrected" history have influenced the western allies.
but such is life. i have heared that there are pices of that falsified history
presented as a fact even in the universitys in Brittain.


"Winners write the history"
I very much doubt you would find Soviet revisionist history in British Schools .I never came across it . Your truth is our truth .Nothing you have said on this subject differs with what I thought was common knowledge .
Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 08-11-2005, 10:09 AM
torspo[fin]'s Avatar
torspo[fin] torspo[fin] is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,843
Default

nope.. but some "leftovers" of it yes.. or some views originating from it.
and i dont beleave that the old views are in the modern books anymore.

but the common mistakes made are still pritty usual in some circles..
thease usual false asumptions are:

1. Finland was an Axis nation.
2. Thus Finnish war goals in Operation Barbarossa were the same
as Nazi-Germany's.

3. As an Axisnation Finland extracted its jewish minority and exported
them to Germany.
(there were few people extracted by far rightist
securitypolice official.. he was dealt with quite swiftly afterwards if i remember correctly.)

Last edited by torspo[fin]; 08-11-2005 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 08-11-2005, 11:04 AM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torspo[fin]
nope.. but some "leftovers" of it yes.. or some views originating from it.
and i dont beleave that the old views are in the modern books anymore.

but the common mistakes made are still pritty usual in some circles..
thease usual false asumptions are:

1. Finland was an Axis nation.
2. Thus Finnish war goals in Operation Barbarossa were the same
as Nazi-Germany's.

3. As an Axisnation Finland extracted its jewish minority and exported
them to Germany.
(there were few people extracted by far rightist
securitypolice official.. he was dealt with quite swiftly afterwards if i remember correctly.)
I have read an awful lot of books on WW2 and the holocaust .Finland is referenced as an axis country because of Operation Barbarossa .But anybody reading about the winter war realises the aim of Finland in 1941 was to regain lost territory .There are no articles on jewish resettlement /extermination in Finland to my knowledge .There were no concentration camps in Finland ,The government was not fascist .
Finlands reputation is untarnished !

Last edited by Texas; 08-11-2005 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 08-24-2005, 06:13 AM
Jim76's Avatar
Jim76 Jim76 is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Versailles, Yvelines
Posts: 610
Default

it is one difficult period of your country that I find very interesting, I have a stupid question the swastika is always a symbol used in the Finnish army?
Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:39 AM
torspo[fin]'s Avatar
torspo[fin] torspo[fin] is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim76
it is one difficult period of your country that I find very interesting, I have a stupid question the swastika is always a symbol used in the Finnish army?
That is not a stupid question.
Finnish used Swastikas don't have relation to nazis(other than the symbol)
or national socialism.. we were democratic during the ww2.
we used the symbol decadeds before the nazis did.
among many other cultures.

Swastika of "Hakaristi" as we call it was partly taken from our old jevelry and
cultural items. the symbol used in tanks was mostly "half-handed"
(the use of full swastika was banned at some time during ww2)
and it was there mainly to mark the tanks "Friendly"..
Finnish Airforce used blue swastika in white circle and the medals and decorations were
also same shape.

also note that all the Finnish used swastikas "rest" on their side.

"half handed"... hm.. like in the Cross of freedom i have for avatar...
(equal to medal of honor if i recall correctly)

you can also find the Cross of freedom from our Presidential Flag:

yes. its a modern flag. not history.

we dont use the Swastika so much anymore for the obvious reasons.
Nowadays you can recognise Finnish military vehicles and
planes from the blue circle inside white one.



for more information:

[URL=http://www.ainurin.net/history/finnish_swastika.htm]http://www.ainurin.net/history/finnish_swastika.htm[/URL]
[URL=http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6577]http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6577[/URL]
[URL=http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/hakaristi.htm]http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/hakaristi.htm[/URL]

Last edited by torspo[fin]; 02-05-2006 at 04:07 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #30  
Old 08-26-2005, 08:20 AM
Jim76's Avatar
Jim76 Jim76 is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Versailles, Yvelines
Posts: 610
Default

you have information on the history of the "molotov ****tail" Finnish invented it to joke the general Molotov?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:04 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    
·Contact Us   ·Legal   ·Privacy   ·Link To Us    ·Advertise With Us    ·About Us    ·Site Map     
     Copyright 2004-2019 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Armyreal.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.