Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Modern Russian view of the Winter War

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 01 May 2007, 21:26
Quote:
The Soviet Union did not guarantee our independence before Moscow Armstice. The only thing the Soviet Union guaranteed before that was unconditional surrender.

I was refering to the winter war when the USSR assured the finns that they had no ambitions of absorbing them into the USSR.
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 08 May 2007, 18:37
So, does anyone post in this forum any more
?
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 May 2007, 22:09
Quote:
I was refering to the winter war when the USSR assured the finns that they had no ambitions of absorbing them into the USSR.


It frankly doesn't matter what the Soviet Union had "assured". Finland and the Soviet Union had a non-agression pact at the start of the Winter War, had been for several years, yet the Soviet Union violated it. Nothing less than negotiated peace was out of the question.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 09 May 2007, 00:27
Quote:
It frankly doesn't matter what the Soviet Union had "assured". Finland and the Soviet Union had a non-agression pact at the start of the Winter War, had been for several years, yet the Soviet Union violated it. Nothing less than negotiated peace was out of the question.

But you just said that Finland made a peace because their independence was garanteed
Quote:
Finland had no desire to continue the war as our independence had been guaranteed.


"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 May 2007, 01:27
Quote:
But you just said that Finland made a peace because their independence was garanteed


Yes, by the Moscow Armstice, the peace of 1944.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 09 May 2007, 02:29
Quote:
Yes, by the Moscow Armstice, the peace of 1944.

But that does not make sense. You are saying that it was not believable when the Russians made their territorial demands against Finland in 1940, but that it was believable when they made demands in 1944. If anything the Soviet attack would have made the Finns less likely to beleive promises, the thing that changed was that they had no choice but to make peace.

Carius, you usually make very good aurguments defending Finland in the second world war. Because of that I see no reason for you to deminish your credibility by saying things that you know are not true, and thier are two facts that you know are true that you are ignoring.

The first is the idea that Finland could hold out against the USSR, Finland only survived the first time because the USSR needed to prepare its defences against Germany so they could not have a large force miared in Finland.

The second is the idea that the USSR would not have the will to prosecute the conclusion of its war against those who attacked it even it meant huge losses.

The fact is that Finland and the USSR signed a peace because they had more to gain by signing it than killing each other.
The USSR would gain valuable naval bases in which to raid German shipping, and avoid offending the western allies who viewed Finland as thier sphere of influence.

As for the Finns they knew that the USSR had lost over 20 million to an invasion in which they participated in (please do not suggest that the Finns were not part of the invasion because even if they were not officialy part of the axis the Germans certianly benifited from them), and that they would be lucky to return to pre-war borders without becoming Russian puppet state.
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 May 2007, 04:24
You are very badly confused, really. What we have here is a major misunderstanding credited to you.

I said:

"Finland had no desire to continue the war as our independence had been guaranteed."

And what I meant is that Finland's independence had been guarenteed as Finnish stopped the Soviet offensive agains't Finland in 1944, which persuaded the Soviet Union to accept negotiated peace. Do you understand?

Also, you said:

"I was refering to the winter war when the USSR assured the finns that they had no ambitions of absorbing them into the USSR."

The Soviet Union had not guaranteed such. As I state above, the "Finland had no desire to continue the war as our independence had been guaranteed." line is refering to the peace of 1944, NOT 1940. You would have understood this if you had read everyone's post carefully.

And to clear one more confusion of yours:

"Dito- answer me this Carius, if indeed they Finns stoped the Soviet advance" One last time: In 1944, not 1940. "then why did they give into Soviet demands?"

Both wars ended in negotiated peace treaties. The Winter War had already failed to achieve the goals put to it and and Stalin and the Soviet leadership belived that continuing the war any longer would be unwise, hence a peace was negotiated. By the time peace was signed again in 1944 Finnish forces had stopped the Soviet offensive at Finnish border and reduced the armies that were supposed to conquer Finland.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 09 May 2007, 05:14
Quote:
Finnish forces had stopped the Soviet offensive at Finnish border and reduced the armies that were supposed to conquer Finland.

You make it look like they had defeated the Red Army for good. The USSR was fully geared toward war by that time and those depleted army's could have been back at full strengh in less than a month. The Germans ruteneyly stopped Soviet offensives even in 1945 only to see even larger offensives happen on another section of the front. The USSR only made peace with the Finns due to political reasons and so they could use Finnish ports to launch suberine attacks on German shipping. It certianly would have cost the USSR to completely take Finland but it cost the USSR far more to take Germany and they still persisted.
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 May 2007, 05:26
Quote:
You make it look like they had defeated the Red Army for good


I certainly did not.

Quote:
The USSR only made peace with the Finns due to political reasons


It was made because continuing war was not seen as reasonable solution in any field. The front with Finland was tying down hundreds of thousands men and much war equipment. Conquering Finland would have been extremely hard, and it would have required even more men and equipment, much more than what it was tried with, and was not worth the cost.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 59
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 May 2007, 14:16
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2007, 19:20
Carius,
I think that your points are valid. It is also important to note that during the Winter War the Finns received support from a number of non-fascist sources. Any attempt to capture Finland by force would have resulted in a long drawn-out conflict that could have resulted in western intervention.

Stalin could show remarkable restraint when it was necessary.
Consider that the Red Army stopped at the borders of Yugoslavia because it suited his purposes. I think that Finland is another example of this behavior. However, he only came to the conclusion based upon the Finns ability to defend themselves

Comrade Yezhov
Soviet cogitations: 14
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jun 2007, 14:09
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 14 Jun 2007, 15:08
Hello everyone, I'm from Ukraine, another former Soviet Republic (the 44-th division, destroyed in the battle of Suomussalmi was mainly composed of Ukrainians). As far as I know, there is no kind of official version of the events of the Winter War in nowadays anyway in Ukraine. What exactly is meant to be the modern view? I guess, it is proved, that the Mainila shelling was orchestrised by the Soviets. This is what you could read at the modern Russian history manuals.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.