Skipper

> Frankly I would take Meretskov’s memoir > with grain and salt. But of course! All I say is that so far I've seen no evidence of occupation plans, but some (non-conclusive) evidence that RKKA had a different operational task. > For instance the official “cause” for > Winter War were gunshots which landed on > Russian village called Mainila. iirc, they landed on a border guard post. Funnily enough, reports from the place of that incident were published in the newspapers on the same day. It is no question, who was the aggressor. Official post-war version for the reason of Winter War, however, was a military threat to Leningrad, Murmansk and Kola peninsula. Failed attempt to negotiate an exchange of land. > Did you know that nothing was teached > about The Winter War in Soviet schools? Not true. Something was. At least, after the school I knew that before 22 June 1941 there were small clashes with Japanese and Finns. Both successful for the soviet side. > I doubt that even now there’s mention > about “Mainila shots” or which country > committed them in Russian school books. > Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully, you are right - this is real history, not for schoolchildren. > Before You question this source I remind > You that Finland is a democracy with free > press, member of EU and don't have any > need for anti-russian propaganda. Don't underestimate the consequences of this fact on the validity of source. It has a modern political agenda. It has no reference to the actual research paper. It just says that it is now "obvious". Hmm...

> I have to second the "tanks" comment. I have to disagree. CM engine, as was discussed at some artillery-related threads, represents only small, mobile engagements. In that case, it would be quite common to have 1 tank platoon per 1 infantry platoon.

> The war in the Eastern Front was very much > pro-communism or anti-communism - at > least, that is the way it was portrayed to > its people. > See if you can get hold of > Beevor's "Stalingrad" if you want more > information. I found it very useful. No. In USSR it was portrayed by official propaganda as a war for the survival of nation. It was also broadly perceived as such by people. I dont need to read Beevor to figure that out - it is quite obvious from reading soviet newspaper articles of that era. Not to mention memoirs, war prose etc. Heck, famous Stalin's speach of July 3 '41 is enough to confirm that. It was his first public address of the war, by all accounts it made a huge impact, and remarkably it had not a single C. word in it (!).

> That would depend on your definition of > their job. Counter-espionage, and security of army operational areas. Judging by how often during 1943-45 soviet generals managed to redeploy and concentrate large formations unnoticed, they managed quite well. Nothing funny, it was a very demanding job.

> One thing I must agree strongly with as > stated by Skipper: the National Socialists > and Communists are not very different in > belief and practice Okay, let's not take this too far the other way. It would be equally misleading. NSDAP and VKP( were very far from similar. > If there is an "opposite" to this > philosophy, it is a belief in the rights > and liberties of individuals. What a sequence of fashionable buzzwords! Reminds me of own Young Communist League past. May I kindly suggest that you get off your high horse, please?

Juha: The URL you referred to is an iterpretation, and quite visibly black and white one. I would be compelled, if it quoted any soviet MILITARY document that would set out plans for occupation of the whole Finland (no press articles and public speeches, please). As it is, it's a school textbook interpretation. In 1940, Mannerheim line was eventually broken. That was the background for the subsequent armistice. Notably, RKKA could but did not advance further than they wanted to go. Afaik, throughout the war USSR asserted claims to parts of Finland, those parts that eventually were ceded to soviet sovereignty as a result of war. Orders not to cross Swedish border: where is Swedish border and where is Helsinki? Ari: Marshall Meretskov was 7th army CO in 1940 and Karelian Front CO in 1944. His memoir was published in 1968. Memoirs being what they are, he still never talks about plans to occupy Finland. Neither in 1940, nor in 1944.

7/2s. In the last four 1250 pts QBs I've seen six.

> there were still active Ukrainian partisan > groups in 1952, when Soviet Ministry of > the Interior troops finally dealt with the > problem by mounting a campaign of > extermination against them, supported by > armour, aircraft and artillery. They were dealing with that problem since 1944. By 1952, there were just a few hundreds of those partisans. If memory serves, the last one was caught in 1958 or something like that. > I personally would be very wary of taking > any Soviet statistics/information at face > value. Heh... You tell me. I personally would be very cautious to take ANY statistics/information at face value - Soviet or other.

> NSDAP and CPSU were most certainly opposed > in practice and creed, if not in name. It wasn't CPSU then. Anyhow, you miss the point here. Both parties originally relied on working class. Which in my book makes them neighbours in a political spectrum. German communists had to compete with NSDAP for the same power base. And as state regimes, they were not entirely opposed in practice and creed. Certainly not "entirely" opposed. Painting that war as an anti-communist fight makes no sense. Even less than saying that it was a fight of an arian race against international sionism.

Triumvir: > Even if they end up like the WWI Imperial > Army, with a rifle for every two men You'd be surprised if I tell you what real partisans had. Most accounts I've seen suggest a picture of colourful, but very respectable arsenal of infantry weapons. Some bigger formations even had tanks and BTRs. Sirocco: > Estimated by whom..? By SMERSH organs responsible for the area. I dont see what's funny about it? These guys were quite competent in their job. > I wouldn't accept their descriptions of > anti-Soviet partisans as simple bandits, > either Uh-oh. I wouldnt either. But who said that? [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

> However, I stand by that the forests were > indeed immense were perhaps the most > severe impact on combat. Perhaps it was lakes. Lakes channel troop movement. >did tanks have any effect in the war >against Chechnia? No. Resounding YES! As long as it was a "proper war" in the field, tanks ruled (as they are supposed). > but it doesn't ammount to didly if you > dont hit anything. But soviet artillery used to hit quite a lot of things and generally was nowhere near "ineffective" or "conscript". Topical example: Karelian Front crossing Svir in the beginning phase of Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation. Artillery preparation started at 11:45 and lasted for 3.5 hours. Then there was a lull and finn defenders saw several rafts launched from the other side of the river. They opened fire, after which artillery barrage resumed for another 75 minutes, concentrating on newly discovered firing points. Those rafts carried dummies, and only 16 soldiers (each of them got a Golden Star afterwards). Real crossing went farily smoothly after that - finnish shore defences were thoroughly suppressed by artillery.

> You mean that U.S.S.R. wasn't interested > in finlads as a whole. No, I mean just what I say: ie, that soviet troops in Karelia did not have any directives or orientations from Stavka (high command) aiming them at Helsinki. At least, nothing like that is mentioned in the books. On the contrary, limited strategic objectives, such as I quoted from Meretskov, are mentioned. I think, Stalin would love get the whole, but it seems that he did not consider it a feasible task at any stage. Protocols that you mentioned meant exactly the following: if one side undertook operations in her "sphere of influence", the other side wouldnt mind it. Btw, Stalin and USSR in general were not notorious for breaking treaties. Not that their track record was perfectly clean (whose was?), but it was one of the best. Besides, it was not terribly smart to have any misunderstandings with other allies in a crucial moment of fall '44. Mind you, at that time it was not known yet, whether the war will last for a few months or a few years, and indeed whether nazy regime will survive or not. > The cold fact is: ALL COUNTRIES THAT GAVE > UP TO STALIN'S DEMANDS CEASED TO EXIST! I dont understand this statement. Which countries were you thinking about? :confused: School education is fine and dandy, but... Real history is always too complicated to teach to a class of teenagers. Everywhere kids are taught a simplified, black and white interpretation, where their own kin are inevitably white.

As I already mentioned, West Ukraine was the only place where KA had to deal with guerillas on a meaningful scale. > The Kaminski Brigade alone numbered around > 9,000 men. And iirc, the total numbers of "banderovtsy" was estimated at 30,000 fighters or so. Compare that to several hundred thousand soviet partisans.

> This is common ideology knowledge Common knowledge usually means that nobody knows nothing. > that the Nazis and Communists were on > opposite ends of the spectrum. My turn to say "Huh?". NSDAP was a national SOCIALIST party. VKP( was a SOCIALIST party, as well. If you want an opposite end of the spectrum to VKP, that was british conservatives, perhaps. > This was all about Nazism trying to > eliminate the Communists. No. That was all about Drang nach Osten (sp?), the concept pre-dating Hitler's birth. Anti-communistic rhetoric was just that - rhetoric. It was reiterated many times after the war, for obvious reasons. To illustrate this point, I would make a suggestion. Find yourself a british (or US) veteran and tell him that he and his buddies were fighting for the communist cause. > As for the partisans I could really care > less since I am sure they will be about > worthless on the battlefield that CM2 is > going to simulate. Hmm... we'll see. The way value points system works, nothing is ever worthless. Besides, soviet partisans were often combined into regiment-sized formations that possessed firepower and combat experience exceeding that of a regular infantry unit.

> Care to mention how the ski brigade ended > up ? Aint know. I am talking about 1944. The brigade was apparently facing germans then, not finns. > But Stalin wanted Finland. But he never set such a task to his generals. The task for 1944 campaign, that Stalin formulated in February of that year to the newly appointed Karelian Front commander Meretskov was "liberation of Karelia and clearing Petsamo (Pechenga) region of fascist troops". Besides, acquisition of Finland by USSR was against agreements with other allies. As soon as security of connection to Murmansk and Kola peninsula was fully re-estabilshed, Finland calling it quits was enough. The peace negotiations, afaik, were mostly on whether or not Finland shall disarm german troops on their territory. Unconditional surrender was not on the table. In fall 1944 much more serious things were happening in South-West direction - it was absolutely imperative to prevent germans from stalling soviet offensive momentum.

By the way, OB of the Soviet 26th Army included separate ski brigade. That's somewhat less than a division, but more than a regiment.

> Skipper, why USSR took Karelia? Why they > took islands of Gulf of Finland and parts > of Lapland? There are too many possible answers. In a simple way, because they wanted, they could and they were willing to pay the price. I can explain you why it was so important, but I guess you can figure it out yourself, looking at a map and keeping in mind contents of the Kola peninsula and the story of Leningrad blockade. Note that soviet generals never had a directive to go to Helsinki - neither in 1940, nor in 1944. As for 1944, soviet generals considered results of the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation, and consequent peace treaty with Finland as a 100% successful.

> What about the Ukrainian nationalist > partisans who fought both the Germans and > the Soviets ? WEST ukranians, "banderovtsy". That's about the only case worth mentioning. > And the Polish Home Army which was run > from London and crushed while the Soviets > stood by across the river? To quote myself: >>Of the second category, there were >>normally separate factions aligned with >>USSR and with UK. There were similar factions in Yugoslavia and Slovakia. In all three cases, UK-aligned anti-nazy partisans attempted to incite an uprising just slightly before liberation by the Red Army, hoping to prevent occupation of their country by soviet troops. Quite naturally, Soviet leadership was not extremely enthusiastic to help such uprisings, and preferred to support their own friends instead. For all I know, Armiya Krajowa did not fight soviet troops. > Really ? Can you quote the source which > gives the numbers ? Except the "banderovtsy", I've never seen any notion of partisan problems in soviet memoirs.

Somehow, I got a feeling that the author of the originating post was thinking about "hordes of unarmed civilians pressed into a military service" or some such. Argh... Here we go again... [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

> partisans from both sides, communist and > anti-communist..? That war was not for or against communism. Hence, the "sides" were not communist and anti-communist. Now, in the context of eatsren front, there were (1) soviet partisans and (2) other anti-nazy partisans (Yugoslavia, Slovakia, Poland, etc, etc, etc). Of the second category, there were normally separate factions aligned with USSR and with UK. Anti-soviet partisans were virtually non-existant (ie, there were, but incomparably smaller numbers).

> I think it's interesting that so much > emotion surrounds the conflict between > Finland and Russia/CCCP Yup. > The Soviets failed in the '44 invasion Failed? Tell me more, plse. Diplomacy of all sorts played a big role in the outcome of that conflict. Ex, in 1942 USSR, UK and USA made a pledge to each other - not to make any new territorial acquisitions as a result WWII. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

Separation is something troops learn quick and well. They learn that after the first artillery barrage that hits them.

Here is from 1940 soviet "Armor tactics" book. Apparently, infantry was supposed to FOLLOW tanks. On the other hand, formation density in your photo looked odd. The above scheme confirms that. Tanks should maintain 150-200 m separation. Morale: the photo must be staged (most likely) and/or it shows the moment of dismounting / changing from marching to combat formation. Which is what the original miniature could be representing as well. [ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

'Tis "privet, mamochka"

We were taught to run alongside BMPs, tanks following. And I am sure that this formation was developed in WWII. Maybe it was later than the photo. I'll ask around. By the way, tank riding squads were introduced in RKKA during WWII, and for all I know, Germans did not use it.