Finland vs. USSR in CM2

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by tero:

They WERE used in fighting and certainly quite often in assaults. The Finnish could not, contrary to popular beliefs, walk over the waist deep snow that the Red Army soldiers had to slug through.

null

I'm sure in various sissi-operations fighting occurred also on skis, but I've never heard about a larger scale assault on skis, maybe you know better? I have thought that the "normal" way of doing things was: 1. ski close to the enemy 2. leave the skis against the tree 3. sneak to shooting position and kill the ruskies 4. sneak back and get on skis 5. 1-4 again... but maybe I'm wrong?

[The Commissar]

Im interested in the Soviet version of ski troops myself. After the Winter War, they employed them to much success against the Germans.

The Finnish have as much of an advantage in the later stage of WW2 as in the earlier: they were defending terrain which they not only knew, but which was perfect for the defense. Heavily wooden, hard to pass through, easy to ambush for the defender, hard to catch the ambush and counter it for the attacker, hard to effectively place arty fire for the attacker, snow restricting movement, etc.

----

To make an example of this in CM terms ( ):

Step 1: Make a custom map with a company of American rifelmen attacking across "heavy snow" and low visibility on a patch of woods (a square several tiles deep and several tiles wide) held by a platoon German sub machine gunners.

Step 2: Deploy the German sub machine gunners inside the woods, so they cannot see outside of it.

Step 3: Move both forces towards each other. The German SMG's should move to the edge of the wood patch, leaving fox holes behind as 2ndry positions.

Step 4: Watch as the German SMG's shoot up a platoon or two who are trying their hardest wadding through the damn snow. If becoming overpowered by counterfire, retreat to 2ndry positions.

Step 5: As the Americans (badly mauled up by the previous encounter) finally reach the woodline, they come in sight of the foxholes and get mauled up even more. Most will rout if done correctly.

Step 6: Repeat as necessary as many times as possible. See if you manage to lose this sort of encounter even once. Also see if making the experience level of the attackers higher makes a difference. If done correctly, it doesnt.

----

As you see, it doesnt take much military wit and know how to make use of such convenient natural defenses. One is only to make ambush after ambush, until the enemy is weak enough to finally be counterattacked in turn.

If the Finns took part in the attack of the USSR along the Germans, they would have been butchered just as the Germans were. Why? Because the Soviets were now on the defense, among land and terrain they knew.

The "mythical Finnish warrior" is mostly based on the fact that the Finns know how to defend terrain which is very well suited for the defense. If my backyard was under attack, I'd know how to defend it better then anyone since I know every foot of my backyard like the back of my hand. That's the whole point.

Oh, and please do not make references to the modern Russian army. Underfunded, undertrained, demorilized by just about everything going wrong...its no wonder they are having trouble in Chechnia. Although in fact, despite what some may believe, they are making progress. Killed a Mujihadeen commander recently, they hold most of Chechnia, and made much progress when compared to, say, the last Chechen war. But that's off topic, I appologize.

[Juha Ahoniemi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

As you see, it doesnt take much military wit and know how to make use of such convenient natural defenses. One is only to make ambush after ambush, until the enemy is weak enough to finally be counterattacked in turn.

If the Finns took part in the attack of the USSR along the Germans, they would have been butchered just as the Germans were. Why? Because the Soviets were now on the defense, among land and terrain they knew.

The "mythical Finnish warrior" is mostly based on the fact that the Finns know how to defend terrain which is very well suited for the defense. If my backyard was under attack, I'd know how to defend it better then anyone since I know every foot of my backyard like the back of my hand. That's the whole point.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear mr.Commissar (from Russia with love?),

So You think Finns just defended their backyard. Maybe the terrains we operated equal to droppings of a fly by Soviet scale, but here is link for You where You can watch animated map show about Finnish continuation war: http://www.koulukanava.fi/historia/ww2/jatkosot/jatko.htm

The texts are in Finnish but You can see the dates and animation tells how frontline moved. Please check sources in the net about casualties - numbers don't lie. Your attempts to umdermine Finnish military efforts in WWII makes me wonder Your sources. Please visit also http://www.hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland_wwii.html/

It is great site in English, not too hard to understand even for You (Ponimai?). Great links and stuff, not all about Finns but WWII in general, too.

Juha

[Ari Maenpaa]

Commissar,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

Im interested in the Soviet version of ski troops myself. After the Winter War, they employed them to much success against the Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I’m sure they did. Weren’t the Germans bound altogether to the roads in wintertime?

During Winter War the Soviets tried to use ski troops against Finns, but that resulted in a disaster. Even during Continuation War they didn’t enjoy great successes with ski troops in Finnish territories. Mainly because of wrong tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Finnish have as much of an advantage in the later stage of WW2 as in the earlier: they were defending terrain which they not only knew, but which was perfect for the defense. Heavily wooden, hard to pass through, easy to ambush for the defender, hard to catch the ambush and counter it for the attacker, hard to effectively place arty fire for the attacker, snow restricting movement, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not all the terrain was perfect for the defence. Only the northern forests. Reread your maps. And the Soviet invasion in ’44 happened during summertime. Guess what? There’s NO snow in Finland in summertime. Anyway nothing of that was a surprise to the attacker. He had all the possibilities to fully prepare for invasion. And still he failed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To make an example of this in CM terms ( ):

Step 1: Make a custom map with a company of American rifelmen attacking across "heavy snow" and low visibility on a patch of woods (a square several tiles deep and several tiles wide) held by a platoon German sub machine gunners.

Step 2: Deploy the German sub machine gunners inside the woods, so they cannot see outside of it.

Step 3: Move both forces towards each other. The German SMG's should move to the edge of the wood patch, leaving fox holes behind as 2ndry positions.

Step 4: Watch as the German SMG's shoot up a platoon or two who are trying their hardest wadding through the damn snow. If becoming overpowered by counterfire, retreat to 2ndry positions.

Step 5: As the Americans (badly mauled up by the previous encounter) finally reach the woodline, they come in sight of the foxholes and get mauled up even more. Most will rout if done correctly.

Step 6: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too simple and one-sided. You forgot to give those Americans dozen of tanks which could be used to suppress enemy infantry. Also the Yanks should have get vastly superior numbers of artillery pieces and jabos. The Soviets enjoyed a massive superiority in firepower. And there wasn’t any snow in June 1944. But maybe you meant Winter War only?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As you see, it doesnt take much military wit and know how to make use of such convenient natural defenses. One is only to make ambush after ambush, until the enemy is weak enough to finally be counterattacked in turn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go completely wrong. The Finns were facing so overhelming odds that they wouldn’t have even survived without excellent military wit and initiative. A game, even an excellent one like CM, can’t portay reality to such degree that you can make direct conclusions from it. And surely not if the setup is as far from the reality as yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If the Finns took part in the attack of the USSR along the Germans, they would have been butchered just as the Germans were. Why? Because the Soviets were now on the defense, among land and terrain they knew. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to have wrong information. At the beginning of the Continuation War the Finns captured larger areas of Soviet controlled soil than the Soviets were able to conquer from Finland during WW2 (I mean by military maneuvers only, not territories which were given up in peace negotiations). And although it costed dearly for them, the cost wasn’t even near to the horrendous Soviet casualties in similar kind of operations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The "mythical Finnish warrior" is mostly based on the fact that the Finns know how to defend terrain which is very well suited for the defense. If my backyard was under attack, I'd know how to defend it better then anyone since I know every foot of my backyard like the back of my hand. That's the whole point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that’s not the whole point, although I admit that you have got some things right.

After the Winter War Stalin grudgingly concluded that the Finnish army was good at defence, but it wouldn’t be able to perform any kind of offensive operations. He got negatively surprised when the Finns launched their succesful attack in 1941. As a result Stalin really got afraid that Finns would cut the Murmansk railway permanently. That’s why USA finally threatened Finland with war.

A big part of the "mythical Finnish warrior" comes from the men, who conducted aggressive scouting/destruction patrols behind the front line and kept the enemy on his toes. That required wit and initiative on it’s purest, I would say. Guerilla warfare.

Please visit the links provided earlier in this thread.

Ari

[The Commissar]

Juha,

I wont even respond to you. You seem to be very agressive on your part, and seeing as how I am indeed Russian, I am no match for your superior Finnish wit, sentence composition and overall wording. You win this argument hands down sir. Good show. Hostilities aside, thanks for the links. I'll be sure to check them out.

Ari,

(since the quoting system in this new forum only allows me to quote only your last responce after your last quote, I'll just adress things in the order in which they appeared)

1) Notice that snow restricting movement was only one of my points on why it is difficult for anyone, at anytime, to attack a country such as Finland. Winter or Summer, Fall or Spring, the country is wooden, mountainous (and I am sure this was more so in the 40's then they are now) and overall difficult to attack. The Soviets failed in the '44 invasion because they were still busy with a bigger enemy, Germany. If the Soviet Army was freed of its burden, or if Stalin decided he wanted Finnish land, he would have had his generals stage a real attack.

2) Let's not forget that these tanks had thin armor, easily penetrated by hidden AT Rifle and AT gun teams which had that wooden terrain I mentioned previously available to them. The supposed Arty would have to be so inacurate and slow to retarget, it would not be useful other then in a preliminary bombardment role. To demonstrate again in CM turns, buy a conscript spotter and see how long it takes you to bring fire to something. By the time the shells are dropping the intended target is long gone.

3) When Finns launched their of '41, the Soviet Army was still in a state of disrepair. It's a miracle it was even able to survive long enough to be rebuilt, restocked, and retrained.

All your other points I am either in agreement with or are adressed by things I already stated in this messege.

[ 05-28-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[Fishu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lala:

Ski troops were essential to finnish army. They made possible to move fast from A to B and make some quick, silent and very deadly strikes against the Russian troops.

A Finnish soldier equipped with Suomi SMG, skiis and white "snow-univorm" is a legend, known as "a white death". What my grandpa' told, Russians were afraid to death 'cos of these sudden strikes when they tried to get some sleep.

This would be a fine reason to include ski troops. Maybe a burst to moving in wintertime. That would be nice and very realistic too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In CM kind of game it could be strategically important.

Skis would enable you to flank the enemy quicker than they can react with its own troops.

[Kestrl]

I'd like to see those Finnish ski infantry try skiing uphill while my T-34/85 tank opens up on them with its 85 mm main gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu:

In CM kind of game it could be strategically important.

Skis would enable you to flank the enemy quicker than they can react with its own troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Fishu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kestrl:

I'd like to see those Finnish ski infantry try skiing uphill while my T-34/85 tank opens up on them with its 85 mm main gun.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in case that your brand new T-34/85 haven't managed to find unpenetrable forrest which covers ski troops.

I suspect they were more using 76mm version.

[Tero]

>The Soviets failed in the '44 invasion

>because they were still busy with a bigger

>enemy, Germany. If the Soviet Army was freed

>of its burden, or if Stalin decided he

>wanted Finnish land, he would have had his

>generals stage a real attack.

It was a real attack. But again, as with Winter War, the goals were set so too far. And the performace of the enemy was discounted. Stalin counted on the improved performance of the Red Army to do what the seemingly bad Red Army performace failed to do. He did not count on the Finnish defence abilities to having gotten proportionately better as well.

>2) Let's not forget that these tanks had

>thin armor, easily penetrated by hidden AT

>Rifle and AT gun teams which had that

>wooden terrain I mentioned previously

>available to them.

Unfortunately there were only 2 (two) 37mm AT guns per regiment and no AT rifles to speak of. The domestic 20mm ATR came too late and the ones that we received during Winter War were too few and too weak. Hence such prevailing AT measures like Molotovs Coctails, satchel charges, smoke grenades, logs and what not.

>The supposed Arty would have to be so

>inacurate and slow to retarget, it would not

>be useful other then in a preliminary

>bombardment role.

For the Red Army, yes. The Finnish arty was fast to retarget but was so starved of ammunition they could fire 10 rounds per DAY per gun at times to conserve the ammo for the really tight spots.

>To demonstrate again in CM turns, buy a

>conscript spotter and see how long it takes

>you to bring fire to something.

To some extent, yes.

>By the time the shells are dropping the

>intended target is long gone.

Unless it is dug in during an assault.

>3) When Finns launched their of '41, the

>Soviet Army was still in a state of

>disrepair. It's a miracle it was even able

>to survive long enough to be rebuilt,

>restocked, and retrained.

They had the space to trade for time.

[Grunto IV]

didn't the finns have a superlative antitank rifle?

also, i hope cm2 will model those 'gentle ben' fan-driven snow vehicles.

andy

[Tero]

>I'd like to see those Finnish ski infantry

>try skiing uphill while my T-34/85 tank

>opens up on them with its 85 mm main gun.

I'd like to see that T-34/85 get up that same hill to reach the position.

What makes you think they would be skiing in the open, in full view of the enemy during an attack ?

[Grisha]

Personally, I think it's interesting that so much emotion surrounds the conflict between Finland and Russia/CCCP, yet these two countries have been quite friendly with each other since war's end. It almost reminds me of close, yet competitive, brothers

[Tero]

>I'm sure in various sissi-operations

>fighting occurred also on skis, but I've

>never heard about a larger scale assault on

>skis, maybe you know better?

Depends what you call larger scale. For example the Raate road battles were fought on skis for the large part. They could not have cut the roads to form the pockets by rushing from the forest on foot. That was done as well but the initial rushes were made on skiis to overpower the defenders in the darkness in the prechosen spot.

>I have thought that the "normal" way of

>doing things was:

>1. ski close to the enemy 2. leave the skis

>against the tree 3. sneak to shooting

>position and kill the ruskies 4. sneak back

>and get on skis 5. 1-4 again... but maybe

>I'm wrong?

Not entirely. The procedure is entirely dependent on the circumstances. What you descibe is the SOP when you are harrasing the enemy during the day. During the night you would go all the way on skiis and fade away when you have expended your ammo and caused enough havoc. When you are attacking the enemy positions with the purpose of taking the positions you would get as near as possible on skiis and then make the final rush, on skiis if feasible, on foot if necessary.

Mind you, as you propably already know, massed frontal assaults during the day were not in the Finnish agenda unless it was absolutely imperative to do it.

[Tero]

>didn't the finns have a superlative antitank

>rifle?

Yes. The 20mm Lahti. But it did not reach mass production until the Winter War was over.

>also, i hope cm2 will model those 'gentle

>ben' fan-driven snow vehicles.

Those would constitute a certain "gamey recon" vehicle.

[Skipper]

> 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 ]

[Fishu]

Interesting thing in this is that its probably only front where US made planes fought against and were bought from US during the war.

Finns Brewsters and all those what US lend-lease planes that russians used.

[Lala]

Skipper, why USSR took Karelia? Why they took islands of Gulf of Finland and parts of Lapland?

Yea, theres much emotion surrounding this conflict b/c quite many Finns think that Karelia belongs to Finland not to Russia/USSR. My grandparents are from Karelia and for real they would like to see this major part of Finnish countryside again under the Finnish flag. Quite many, or allmost all think that USSR attacked without good reason. We sure were cought our pants down. Karelia is a symbol of unfairness to Finns.

Well. Theres been peace for 57 years and if Karelia is price of it, so be it. Actually former president of Finland, U.Kekkonen had some secret negotiations with USSR in 60's and 70's to change Finnish Lapland to Karelia. Quite wild isn't it?

[Skipper]

> 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.

[Skipper]

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.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to mention how the ski brigade ended up ?

I assume you mean the brigade which ir referred to as the Dolinin Brigade in Finnish sources.

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

Commissar,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by The Commissar:

Winter or Summer, Fall or Spring, the country is wooden, mountainous (and I am sure this was more so in the 40's then they are now) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There weren’t any mountains in Finland sixty years ago. Not even in the northern part of the country. And as we know, the fighting mainly happened in southeastern part.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Soviets failed in the '44 invasion because they were still busy with a bigger enemy, Germany. If the Soviet Army was freed of its burden, or if Stalin decided he wanted Finnish land, he would have had his generals stage a real attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Stalin wanted Finland. The Soviet assault in Karelia 1944 wasn’t fake. There was as much military power available as was estimated to be needed for a complete breakthrough. And that power didn’t consist of second grade troops. The 30th Guards Corps was involved for instance. The assault was fiendishly timed to start only a little after Normandy landings (9.6.) so that the western support to Finland would be minimal. Stalin expected Finland to be occupied before the western nations would even notice it (They were temporarily occupied by the landing operations). At Tali-Ihantala (25.6 – 7.7.) the Red Army made it’s last big attempt to achieve a final breakthrough into Finland. It didn’t succeed. After their efforts got frustrated, those forces were tranfered elsewhere and Soviets informed that they will receive Finnish delegation for peace talks. To that point Stalin had demanded an unconditional surrender.

Ofcourse, if we take a purely fictitious stance and completely forget the surrounding world, Finland alone wouldn’t have been strong enough to resist the whole military might of Soviet Union for long (Who would?). The whole land had lower population than there were inhabitants in Leningrad. Also there’s no denying that the Red Army got better and better along the war. Fortunately for the Finns, it never got to that. Otherwise there would have been long and costly guerilla war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2) Let's not forget that these tanks had thin armor, easily penetrated by hidden AT Rifle and AT gun teams which had that wooden terrain I mentioned previously available to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

During Winter War that could have been true. But the Finns lacked so badly in AT weapons that even the thin armor was usually thick enough. As Tero already said, that’s why many ad hoc means were used to destroy attacking tanks. It’s no accident that Molotov’s cocktail got it’s name in Winter War. Read Trotter’s “A Frozen Hell” and you can see how HC Finnish AT warfare sometimes was.

In 1944 the assaulting Soviets used their biggest tanks like IS-2 and ISU-152, so the reference to thin armor doesn’t apply there. But fortunately this time the Finns got new panzerfausts and shrecks and were also generally better equipped than earlier. Also artillery ammunition wasn’t as ridiculously scarce as it was in Winter War. And they also got help from Kuhlmey’s Stukas.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The supposed Arty would have to be so inacurate and slow to retarget, it would not be useful other then in a preliminary bombardment role. To demonstrate again in CM turns, buy a conscript spotter and see how long it takes you to bring fire to something. By the time the shells are dropping the intended target is long gone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that the Soviet artillery was quite inflexible during WW2. Didn’t Red Army overcome the inflexibility by using massive concentrations of artillery? Why bother to retarget if you have so many guns that you can still saturate the whole area with HE? In CM’s terms you should buy masses of those conscript spotters and then call never ending volleys on wide areas on the map. And like Tero said, in reality those battlefields were so static that there wasn’t major need to quickly adjust fire.

Look at the pictures from the Winter War battlefields for example. It’s instantly apparent that the Soviet artillery was so intense that there was NO wood cover left. Just burned sticks left in the ground. How can you keep your ambushing infantry hidden and intact in that kind of landscape? The scenario you described in the earlier post is even more further from the truth than I first thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3) When Finns launched their of '41, the Soviet Army was still in a state of disrepair. It's a miracle it was even able to survive long enough to be rebuilt, restocked, and retrained. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it’s true that the Soviets had lot of concerns in ’41, but they also had vast spaces to trade for much needed time to recuperate. No other nation had such luxury. Still, in a sense I’m glad that they could overcome, because I wouldn’t want to live in fascist Europe. Neither would I want to live in communist Finland and the credit for that belong to the great Finnish army.

Ari

[Skipper]

> 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.

[Juha Ahoniemi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:

Note that soviet generals never had a directive to go to Helsinki - neither in 1940, nor in 1944.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume You mean that U.S.S.R. wasn't interested in finlads as a whole. Well how about this: The German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and the secret additional protocol of August 23, 1939. In the secret protocol Finland and the Baltic countries were included in the Russian side of spheres of interest in the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to these countries. The Pact and the Secret Additional Protocol can be found at http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/pact.htm

So Yes, Stalin wanted Finland. I don't have a direct link for You about his orders for his generals right now but believe me the original idea of invade Finland (without a provocation or declaration of war, I might add) was to make Finland a "bitch" to U.S.S.R.

The cold fact is: ALL COUNTRIES THAT GAVE UP TO STALIN'S DEMANDS CEASED TO EXIST!

I'm very interested about Your sources that say U.S.S.R. never intented to take whole Finland or go to Helsinki like You said(sounds like history rewritten by the winning party, wouldn't be the first time though) - because alone in the internet (leaving historybooks aside) there is tons of information saying just opposite. In 1944 the main purpore might have been to get Finland out of the war and free troops to elsewhere, but battles were very big, hard and real. It would be naive to think that stalin held back because of some pledge with allies - Everybody knows how he kept his treatys and promises! To this day I have believed what they told me at history lessons at school - thanks to our veterans (who BTW don't get the respect they should get from modern age countrymen. I guess kids just don't understand)!

Anyway it is very interesting to get feedback and opinions from non-finns about WWII history considering us. Thank You for that and excuse me if this subject is emotional for us. In common we respect greatly what our veterans achieved and owe them dearly. When I look at the old Warsaw-Pact countries and Baltic states and their post-war history it makes me feel even more proud of our veterans.

[The Commissar]

Ari,

1) Forgive me about the mountainous part. I must of been thinking about another part of North-Eastern Europe (didn't have a map/atlas with me on hand). However, I stand by that the forests were indeed immense were perhaps the most severe impact on combat.

2) By "real" I mean an attack that the Soviet army was famous for at the time. If the first one failed, they would regroup, rearm, and stage an assault many times more massive and with lessons learned about the state of preperation of the Finnish defenders. Stalin knew that this sort of attack could not be staged, as all available troops were used in pushing back the Germans. Finland was deemed to be no major threat to the USSR and thus forgoten. Besides, although no none-conditional surrender was established, the Soviets did get land and a cease fire to eliminate Finland from their list of potential problems.

3) As I said, its difficult with the massive forests and wilderness to have any success with tank use. Now, I know I hoped this would not get brought up as it is dealing with a weakened Russia, but...did tanks have any effect in the war against Chechnia? No. If they did have any effect, it was minimal. Mostly, they were expensive targets.

In the winter war, they had more of an effect in the more massive battles. However, considering the terrain and the countless numbers of ambushes that were relatively easy to stage. It always mystifies me how people see a tank army as a clear sign of power and inevitable victory. It just ain't so. Send a tank down a wooden road, and it's just a metal coffin. Effectively blind until too late, unable to save itself or retreat out of danger if in cramped conditions.

4) The shell and gun ammount might have been many, but it doesn't ammount to didly if you dont hit anything. Unless in a major engagement, and the Soviets were able to target their shells at a concentration of Finnish forces, all arty ever did was deform the landscape some. Sure, it caused casualties. Usually though, this mass concentration didnt pay for itself.

Same as tank armies. Its effective in the right enviorment and if used right. If I can't see what Im throwing shells at, there's a 1 in 100 chance that I'll hit something, especially if the target is small (like many Finnish forces).

Oh, and entire forests burned down and not being able to hide in them is, forgive my language, bulls@it. First off, there was still plenty of forests to hide in. Second off, even in a burned down forest of charred husks of wood, you can hide damn well. Especially in snow. Give me a white suit and have me lie down in the snow sorrounded by charred logs. See if you're able to notice me from even 50 metres off.

5) Vast spaces and blood. If the Soviets didn't put up resistance and simply retreated back, it would take Germany 4 weeks to get to Moscow. If it wasn't for the sacrifises of the early Soviet fighters who, sometimes unwillingly, died for the "motherland", the USSR would have been overrun.

[Skipper]

> 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.