Quote:After the Soviets depleted their force in 1944 that was to and failed to destroy the Finnish military and penetrate into central Finland and with a negotiated peace being signed as a result
Quote:The negotiated peace, not the results - destruction of Finland's capability to seek terms other than unconditional surrender in 1944 when they launched a major offensives coordinated with D-day against Finland - the Soviets had planned for
Quote:since it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the Soviets would break through into Finland if the war continued longer.
Quote:portrays Stalin as wanting to conquer Finland in 1940 and 1944, but failing due to Finnish resistance. Kind of like saying "we lost both wars but managed to keep our independence by bleeding the Soviets".
Quote:Not true that the Soviets wanted unconditional surrender.
Quote:The final peace terms were similar to the terms demanded a few months before the offensive
Quote:No, by the time the peace was signed the Soviet offensive had been depleted dry with the greatest battle in Nordic countries history; Tali-Ihantala, ending in decisive victory for the Finnish.
Quote:Stalin could not pull things out of thin air - the Soviets could not continue without diverting forces from other fronts, which he could ill afford if he wanted to focus against Germany, which is something Stalin understood very well.
Quote:Not Finnish, but scientific community in general.
Quote:Which, together with international political developements, is what happened.
Quote:Very true. The 1944 offensive was aimed to penetrate into central Finland and destroy Finnish military, rendering Finland's capability to resist anything, be it military or political.
Quote:That's not quite so simple. Simply bowing would have left Finland with a Soviet force on the border that would not have been depleted and in need of reinforcements from other fronts, but an unscratched force. Finland wanted to make sure that it would be more than likely the Soviets would not try anything more against Finland after negotiations had already been done - Finnish still remembered that the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Finland in 1939, and that did not quite go according to treaties.
Quote:Again this is Finnish historiography...
Quote:Finnish forces were at least as depleted
Quote:No, the offensive aimed to knock Finland out of the war on Soviet terms, which is what happened.
Quote:It was not 1939
Quote:like you said the Soviets wanted to concentrate on the Germans.
Quote:No, it is quite scientific community in whole. Scientific community; academics, history, sciences.
Quote:No, the Finnish military was actually stronger than before the Soviets offensive, the Soviet offensive on the contrary having depleted itself. The Soviets had failed to destroy any large sized Finnish units, while the Finnish had managed to motti several Soviet units in Northern Finland - many remained encircled when peace talks were done.
Quote:Wrong, it was planned penetrate into central Finland and destroy Finnish military.
Quote:No, but Finnish knew very well how treaties had gone with Stalin before, and it was to be made sure that I'd be more than likely he would not try anything more.
Quote:No, I said that the Soviets could not continue without reinforcing the depleted force from other fronts - which Stalin could ill afford if he wanted to focus on Germany.
Quote:There is no consensus among historians outside of Finland that Stalin wanted to conquer Finland...
Quote:If Finland was that successful then why did it accept such harsh terms?
Quote:That might have been part of the military tactical goals if Finland would not accept peace.
Quote:By your logic he would have invaded Finland after the German defeat...
Quote:This is exactly what I wrote...
Quote:If you really want to convince the scientific community of such then good luck - you will need it.
Quote:Maintaining independence was the the most important to Finnish, and the Finnish knew that now it was more than likely that Stalin would not try anything with his offensive force depleted, and he could ill afford to divert forces from other fronts if he wanted to focus on Germany.
Quote:No, as it was presented by STAVKA to Stalin, it was to advance into central Finland, destroying Finnish military.
Quote:No. Stalin agreed with Churchill and Roosevelt at Yalta that Finland was a seperate issue, and the United States embassy had noted Moscow already in 1944 that violating treaties with Finland would not be accepted - Finland was never at war with the United States, and was the only nation at war with the Soviet Union and the British Commonwealth to maintain diplomatic relations with the United States. Post-war politics were quite different from World War II, and Finland was overshadowed by things such as the Eastern Europe.
Quote:No, you wrote that "like you said the Soviets wanted to concentrate on the Germans", which is not what I wrote; "No, I said that the Soviets could not continue without reinforcing the depleted force from other fronts - which Stalin could ill afford if he wanted to focus on Germany " - meaning that the Finnish leadership played on that Stalin could not continue offensive agains't Finland if he wished to focus on Germany in the race with the Western Allies.
Quote:Finnish Nazi SS troops formed the vanguard and spearheaded the German Wehrmacht assault against the Stalingrad and Caucasus regions in 1942 and advanced to the Grozny oil fields in Chechnya. This was the farthest Nazi advance into the Soviet Union by the Axis, spearheaded by Finnish Nazi Waffen SS volunteers. It is important to remember that the Finnish government of Risto Ryti sent the Finnish Nazi SS volunteers. There was government action on the part of Finland. Ryti should have been prosecuted for war crimes and for genocide. But he never was. Finland’s Nazi past and role in the Holocaust was blurred and obscured by Finnish propaganda.
The memorial would consist of a small monument or plaque erected by Ahtisaari’s Finnish government at a burial site in southern Ukraine where the remains of 150 Finnish Nazi Waffen SS volunteers are buried. Finns were initially considered non-Aryans because they belonged to the Finno-Ugric language group, not regarded as Indo-European under Nazi racist policy. Nevertheless, Himmler accepted Finns into the elite, racially pure, Waffen SS, as belonging to the Nordic racial stock and regarded Finns as among his best SS troops.
Finland’s Jewish groups protested to President Martti Ahtisaari because his government was subsidizing or financing the project. Gideon Bolotowsky, a Finnish Jewish leader, accused Ahtisaari of financing Nazism. Bolotowsky told Reuters: “They (the government) are giving money to a Nazi cause. They did not fight for Finland. …It is a mistake of the government.”
Quote: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. But there are people today who would rather believe a lie than the truth, for political reasons. For example, President Putin has always "believed" that the Soviets never invaded anyone. They were either defending themselves or were asked to enter a country, such as the Baltic States. We know this is rubbish; even the United States never recognized it, even though they were allies, and US historians often like to state the Soviet version.
There was never evidence or reason for suspecting Finland making any war plans with Hitler the way Russia did with same. Certainly Hitler was looking at Finland as a staging area in the north, not near Leningrad. Activities in northern Finland by the Germans were under way during a time when the Germans and the Russians were allies. Later, when Germany attacked Russia, the Germans fought the Russians in the north. Neither the Russians, nor the Germans were very efficient in the Finnish forests. That is why it is stupid to think that the Germans could invade Russia via Finland. Their mechanized armies would grind to as swift a halt as Stalin's.
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. Furthermore, if Finland wanted to attack Leningrad with Germany, which it didn't, there would be no need for Germany to enter Finland. Finland was not involved in the Leningrad siege. But Russia was involved in the Vyborg siege, just across the border in 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 to Leningrad open, thereby proving that no threat existed from Finland. Despite evidence to the contrary, the Allies insisted that such a threat existed as per Stalin's insistance, even labelling Finland as a Fascist country - a serious error, the consequence of which was born by Finland. 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. To get his way, Stalin used all means, including lying, which is sanctioned by communist doctrin, to achieve his goals. Therefore, if Stalin says he wants a little piece, wouldn't it be normal for him to be lying? 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)