Tero Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 >Yes I have & I realy doubt it would have >alterted anything, except bring Germany & >Russia into the war as Allies. Finland did >not Opt to accept the peace, Finland had >very little choice in the matter. Not quite accurate. There were two options: ask for aid from the West and fight on to the bitter end or accept the terms. Our leaders opted to take the terms. >Tero the peace benifited Stalin as he had >bigger fish to to fry Ie, Germany Yes >& no he couldn't leave Finland alone they >broke the peace treaty Which peace treaty did we break ? They had themselves broken the non-aggression pact by attacking in 1939. Furthermore the vindictive attitude taken by Stalin and Molotov after Winter War was over made it impossible for us to take any other course except the one that lead us to the Germans. >as well as allowed German troops to operate >from their borders. That is a bit of a non-sequitur. >As soon as fourtunes changed & Finland >realised Germany was doomed, Finland decided >it was time to make peace, the choice was >surrender & keep the WW agreements on >territory & expell all German forces, or be >crushed. Obviously Finland chose the first >option. It's realy moot as to what the >Allies would have done etc, as it never >occured. But that possibility did affect Stalins actions. I trust you are aware Finland sought peace already in late 1943. And I trust you are also aware that the Soviet assault in the summer of 1944 ran out of steam in July 1944 but the cease fire was signed only in September 1944. Why the huge gap between these dates if we were totally beaten ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 >I guess term "Finlandization" better >describes post-war status than pre-war >status. > >(Finlandization - country that continuosly >changes its politics and itself to pacify >its strong neighbour - until it almost >becomes a satelite state. I believe US >strategic cold-war planners came up with >this term) I think it was actually the West-Germans who concocted that term. You know, the ones who were still being occupied by foreing armies well into the -90's. Now that is sour grapes if I ever saw any. Check out for the offical Finnish version at: http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/after.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 >By the way Fins were not the only ones to >fight Soviet Union and get peace accord. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant during and after WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 >answer to Q#1: yes, regularly. >answer to Q#2: nope. See ? >yes, they (german armor, esp.StuGs) seem not >to achieve the actual RealLife successes in >CM. > >However, just checking, tero, you *do* know >that hulldown is an I/0 I am aware of this. Painfully so. >decision and that this is totally irrelevant >of actual vehicle layout/dimensions etc.? Well.... if the terrain tiles are perfectly ideal for a turreted vehicle as tall as a Sherman then I would say the layout/dimensions do have a role in this sordid little production of ours. >Therefore, it is just as easy or hard to put >a StuG into hulldown as it is to put, say, a >Sherman into hulldown, IIRC. That depends on the TacAI, doesn't it ? As the player can not order a vehicle to assume the (hull down) position and the terrain tiles tell the TacAI moving the Stug to basically forget it in most cases what do you get ? A non-turreted burning hulk that never managed to fire a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Finlandization was a term from Oxford thinkers and was used in 1950 by Winston Churchill. It really stands for a country which looses its allies through political or other form of isolation, then must capitualet to a stronger neihgbor. This is oppsed to one which is overthrown, or invaded. In 1945 Finland was bewteen a rock and a hard place. They had declared war against Britain and had Brtain declare war against them on December 6th 1941. Mannerheim, while a great political leader, was not able to completely keep the Germans at arms length, and while the US, France and Britain had originally been very supportive of Finland both against Russia and Germany, they were not in the mood to face down Russia for her sake after the war when officially she was a belligerant (although not much of one, really never having the resources to carry the fight outside her own borders). The Soviet Union here was able to move an enemy directly into its camp merely by flexing its muscle, and Finland's allies, the Nazis, has so totally discredited themselves that when they fell, there was nowhere else to turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 >I don't really know what that claim is based >on, because during 90's there's been lots >and lots and lots of remains of Finnish >soldiers been hauled from Karelian >during early summer of 1944 (when the Soviet >all-out attack broke) most of the routed >front soldiers had better things to do than >to stop and look why that brother-in-arms >said "AAAARGH" and collapsed to ground. Shame on you. :mad: Finnish losses, timeperiod 1941-1945, including the fighting against the Germans. (Source: Suomi Sodass)a: KIA 64 120 MIA 1 924 WIA 145 147 Total casualties 211 191 (note: 1 993 men returned from captivity, 404 died in captivity and are included in the number of KIA. 3 088 were deglared legally dead as they were left in the field and they have been added to the number of KIA.) A search at: http://tietokannat.mil.fi/menehtyneet/ brought up 15 331 KIA/DOW/MIA between 09th June 1944 and 30th July 1944. The figure from the database is 60 845 between 20th June 1941 and 30th July 1944. Please list figures for these lots and lots and lots of MIA who have been brought home. There were "only" some 4 500 still out there when the book was written and that covered the entire 1941-1945 period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paco QNS: the use of muzzle-brakes, which also rised a lot of dust (one of the reasons not to use them in all vehicles IIRC).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, one of the main purposes of muzzle brakes was to reduce dust kicked up by channeling the blast to the sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Not quite accurate. There were two options: ask for aid from the West and fight on to the bitter end or accept the terms. Our leaders opted to take the terms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tero why would the West aid an German ally? & fight on to the bitter end? I'm sure the Finnish leaders considered that but I also bet they knew what the outcome would have been so did what was in the best intrests of their ppl, rather then opting for Armagedon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Which peace treaty did we break ? They had themselves broken the non-aggression pact by attacking in 1939. Furthermore the vindictive attitude taken by Stalin and Molotov after Winter War was over made it impossible for us to take any other course except the one that lead us to the Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lets see; Finland loses the Winter War & sighns a treaty with the USSR. In 1941 Finland see's a chance to reclaim her lost territory by sideing with Germany against the USSR. Albeit Finland plays an minor role more concerned with re-establishing her pre WW borders. Finland reclaims the land ceded by treaty to the USSR. Now why am I not to see this move, as an broken treaty?, & the Finnish sideing with the Germans as an act of convience. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And I trust you are also aware that the Soviet assault in the summer of 1944 ran out of steam in July 1944 but the cease fire was signed only in September 1944. Why the huge gap between these dates if we were totally beaten ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No Tero I wasn't aware of that, from my reading on the matter the Soviet's had very little trouble attaining their goals & even managed to do it in the original plans time frame Ie, Vyborg fell on June 21 despite intense Finnish resistance, While other Soviet forces drove into Karelia, not bad for an operation that only lasted from June 10 - Aug 9 1944 & who's goals had virtualy been met by June 21. By June 29th the Soviet's had removed their offensive forces from the region to shift them to areas they were needed in & established defensive lines to keep their gains. Events in the AGN front as well as the loss of Riga was immenent forced Finland to negotiations with the Soviets in Sept. Regards, John Waters [ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Ok guys, this thread is getting near the 300 Post Event Horizon so I am gonna close her up and start a new one where we can continue. Thanks... Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts