Finland vs. USSR in CM2

[Tero]

>Well haven't I talked up a storm!!

You found a sweet spot we Finns love to rub.

>Well for starters a DRAFT copy is obviously

>somethign that is considered - and then NOT

>adopted - or it wouldn't be DRAFT.

If it was a mere draft why was it kept in the archives and not disposed of ?

>Whether or not it was public is irrelevant -

>many official documents are not public. So

>what?

I think the matter is so delicate because the Soviets consistently deny any and all allegations their intention was to occupy the entire country. They were just grabing some buffer zone around Leningrad and securing the passage through the Gulf of Finland for the Baltic Fleet. Roight ?

Among other concrete peices of evidence there are the marching orders which were captured. And other conclusive evidence has been found. And still the Soviets maintained their position that they were only after the buffer zone. The Terijoki government is one fact you seldom see in English language histories.

Since the matter is so flammable for the Western historians it has been written off using the Soviet version, for example in the ensyclopdias. Why has the Finnish point of view been suppressed ? (I am asking this from the scholarly point of view.) Could it be that since the Winter War brought about the fall of the French and the British governments it has been easier to label us with the label "Nazi ally" and gathegorically use only either captured German documents or the Soviet version and not ask about the matter from our point of view when it comes to subsequent events. The German sources, which are usually consulted when the Finnish involvement is discussed can be said to contain more than a fair share of sour grapes.

And I agree it was preposterous of us to have claimed 200 000 Soviet KIA and 1 200 KO'd tanks for the loss of some 25 000 KIA of our own right after the Winter War. Only recent findings from the Soviet archives put that number of Soviet KIA at (at least) 130 000 and over 3 000 tanks lost to all causes, of which some 1 200 were lost in combat. How do you like them apples.

>Had the document ever reflected actual Sov

>policy, public or not, then it would not

>have been draft.

But would it have been kept in the archive if it was based on idle talk ? And the Finnish army did have a say in the matter and Stalin had to be able so save face, again, by altering the demand for unconditional surrender. I trust you are aware the Soviet attack got blunted in July '44 while the armistice was signed in September '44. Why the 60+ days between the two dates if the Soviet assault was a resounding success and it had met all its objectives as planned ?

>BTW despite the name I am not an apologist

>for hte Sov's........but nor am I going to

>sit here and watch people talk up something

>into a solid fact without any actual

>evidence.

The evidence is there. But since very few Western historian has been the least bit interested in the subject to come and dig through the Finnish arcives it is only accessible to us Finns. Which is a pitty.

If you have read Glanzt please check his list of sources. There are no Finnish sources mentioned even though he has gone through some events that involve the Finns. He has used only German and Soviet/Russian sources. Why do you think that is so ? There are a few Finns around who can translate well enough so that such revered historians like Glantz can gain access to the Finnish archives.

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[zahl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Well for starters a DRAFT copy is obviously somethign that is considered - and then NOT adopted - or it wouldn't be DRAFT.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This document was being prepared in the summer of 1944, but the situation for which it was intended had not yet emerged.

Your argument would be valid if they had simply decided not to adopt it. However, the Soviet offensive stalled and the document was rendered useless. Why was it not public? Because that would have collided with their official and public policy. This is not irrelevant. The fact that it indeed was not public supports the notion that it represents their true intentions. It was not just some paper meant to intimidate the Finns before negotiations or to be used as a bargaining tool. Afterall, it was coupled with that infamous public demand of unconditional surrender. When this demand was lifted and the Soviets changed their objectives, the document became irrelevant.

In this context there's reason to believe that the document reflects actual Soviet intentions.

One link discussing Finnish and Soviet tactics: http://www.winterwar.com/tactics.htm

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: zahl ]

[Skipper]

> In this context there's reason to believe

> that the document reflects actual Soviet

> intentions.

To form a meaningful opinion about this, it would be worth knowing the contents of that draft document. A copy, perhaps.

[Sergei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Well for starters a DRAFT copy is obviously somethign that is considered - and then NOT adopted - or it wouldn't be DRAFT.

Whether or not it was public is irrelevant - many official documents are not public. So what?

Had the document ever reflected actual Sov policy, public or not, then it would not have been draft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Argh, lost my first reply... hmmpfh. My post would have been something like: first you have a draft. Then you show it to your opponent, and it becomes a proposal. At the moment it is signed by both parties, it is an agreement. During the early summer 1944 there were no proposals made nor agreements signed, so what ever Stalin had in his back pocket for president Ryti, it was just a draft at that time. Would that mean that Soviets had no goals for the offensive? No. But it should be noted, that it cannot be derived directly and 100 percent surely just from one draft.

Talking about whether objectives are met, is not that simple, anyway. Think about the US-Japanese war: the goal for USA in 1945 was to make Japanese accept an unconditional surrender (and I'm sure someone is going to beat me for this generalisation!!!). However, the Japs got through the condition to not harm the emperor. So, did USA fail meeting their objectives?

[zahl]

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

> In this context there's reason to believe

> that the document reflects actual Soviet

> intentions.

To form a meaningful opinion about this, it would be worth knowing the contents of that draft document. A copy, perhaps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has anyone read Ph.D. Tapio Tiihonen's gigantic dissertation "Karjalan kannaksen suurtaistelut kesällä 1944" (The major battles on the Karelian Isthmus in summer 1944). It is heavily based on Soviet archivals and would probably shed light on this.

[Sergei]

Maybe this could be useful:

Finnish-Soviet Relations 1944-1948. Papers of the Seminar organized in Helsinki, March 21-25, 1994, by the Department of Political History, University of Helsinki, in cooperation with the Institute of Universal History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Edited by Jukka Nevakivi. Department of Political History, University of Helsinki, 1994. (248 pp.)

Just because it holds the following chapter, and because it is from 1994 (after Turtola had grasped the document mentioned in HS article).

Martti Turtola: Finland's Path to the Armistice of 1944 B Some Open Questions

Not like I was going to go and look for it...

[tss]

zahl wrote:

Has anyone read Ph.D. Tapio Tiihonen's gigantic dissertation "Karjalan kannaksen suurtaistelut kesällä 1944"

I've tried. It is one of the worst-written dissertations that I've read, language is awkward and there are lots of things that--in my not-so-humble opinion--don't belong there, like analysis of Marxists dialectics. It certainly has lots of interesting data that hasn't been published elsewhere, but mining it out of it is a real chore.

Here is a sample chapter title: "4.2 The Dualism of Soviet Allocation and Mannerheimian Unity".

I think that his thesis supervisor should have at some point commented about the readability of the text.

- Tommi

[Ari Maenpaa]

Stalin's Organ,

Ok baby, so you talk about the document but forget the circumstances. I think the whole thing needs a broader perpective. The document is only one trendsetting evidence in the chain with others. Unfortunately at this time I could only provide Turtola’s short summary which was in my earlier post. There have been bigger newspaper stories about the document in early 90s, but I don’t have any of those at the moment.

Anyway, let’s go through the background again:

1. Germany and the USSR made a Non-Aggression Pact and the secret additional protocol of August 23, 1939. As a direct result of this, the USSR occupied a big part of Poland and demanded areas from the Baltic States. Then it turned to Finland. The Winter War followed.

2. 17 and 18 June 1940, Red Army troops crossed the frontiers and took over the Baltic States.

3. Hitler refused to let the USSR to deal once and for all with Finland, when Molotov asked Hitler's opinion on that matter in Nov 1940.

4. 29 June 1941 the Finns started their ’41 campaign which restored pre-Winter War borders and some more.

5. 24 March 1943 Molotov gave to the USA the terms of peace with Finland. They included borders of 1940, war against Germany and reparations. US government didn’t transmit terms to Finns, because it considered them too harsh.

6. 29 November 1943 Finland left an offer for peace based on borders of 1939. Soviet Union didn't want to discuss the peace on these terms.

7. 26 March 1944 Finnish delegates Paasikivi and Enckell flied to Moscow, where Molotov gave them new peace proposals.

8. 14 Apr 1944 Finnish government decided not to accept these peace terms, because of harsh conditions and German pressure.

9. 9 June 1944 the Soviets launch their invasion with the ultimate goal to overcome Finland.

10. 21 June 1944 Finland asked terms for peace via Sweden.

11. 22 June 1944 Soviet Union replied that only unconditional surrender would be accepted.

12. 3 July 1944 the Soviets tried to achieve breakthrough in Ihantala, but failed.

13. 12 July 1944 Soviet Union informed the Swedish that it was willing to discuss peace with Finland.

14. 19 September 1944 Interim peace was signed in Moscow.

Please note the point 3: This is important because it shows without doubt that the Soviets weren’t satisfied with the results of the Winter War. They STILL wanted more at the time when the border already was relocated beyond the Karelian Isthmus.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, who already knows this, that the ultimate goal for the Soviets in ‘44 was to occupy Finland. Few Finns doubt that, but as Tero said, the foreign people usually have biased background information based on the Soviet history.

I found an interesting site about Russo-Finnish relationships during WW2: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/3818/FINNLIV.HTM

And opinions from the people who had to live under the Soviet yoke: http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/

Be patient at this site. Not all pages are left, but it’s interesting anyway

Ari

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]

[Stalin's Organ]

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

[QB

If it was a mere draft why was it kept in the archives and not disposed of ?

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK it's common to keep all bits of paperwork generated by governements - even if not adopted as policy they are still part of the officila record, and can indicate what options were considered along the way to the final decision.

I'm not saying that the Sov's did NOT want complete conquest of Finland at soem stage......just that a DRAFT document does not support the viewpoint that they definitely did want to do so.

[Juha Ahoniemi]

Ari just made a nice summary. Here is something considering part 3 of his summary:

from: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/events/1940.html

"November 12. Foreign Commissar Viacheslaf Molotoff Consulted with Chancellor Hitler. (To clarify and activate Russo‑German relations. Ibid., Nov. 13; 1940, p. 1. Russia demanded "a free hand to strike a 'final blow at Finland and liquidate us [Finland]." Finland, p. 104. )"

Why to talk abot that matter if U.S.S.R. really achieved all its objectives in winter war?

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That’s pure propaganda. Hypocrisy even. If anything, the USSR and Stalin WERE notorious for breaking treaties. And that was only for the starters, unfortunately.

Juha already mentioned how the USSR violated it’s peace treaty with Finland, but here’s more examples:

The Treaty of Riga made in 1921 between Poland and the USSR or the Protocol signed in Moscow on May 5, 1934, extending their Non-Aggression Pact of 1932, didn’t stop Molotov from ratifying the Nazi-Soviet Pact which bisected Poland. The Soviets invaded Poland on September 17. 1939. Among other things the Katyn massacre followed. 21 857 people were killed there.

Btw. it’s very interesting to note that the Katyn prison camps were prepared (by executions) to take in 20 000 Finns in February 1940. The USSR was going to cleanse Finland, like their other victims, after occupation. Thank God the occupation never succeeded.

The Baltic Tribunal Against the Soviet Union held on July 25 and 26, 1985 in Copenhagen, declared that “the occupation and annexation of the once independent states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania serve as prime examples of the violations of international public law and treaties ratified by the Soviet Union”.

Japan and the Soviet Union were not at war throughout almost the entire period of the war because a neutrality pact was concluded between the two countries in April 1941. It was valid for five years. However, on August 1945, three days after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Soviet Union, violating this neutrality pact, entered into war against Japan that was already on the brink of defeat.

The Soviet Union militarily occupied not only the Japanese Chishima Islands but also Habomai and Shikotan islands, which were not even referred to in the Yalta Agreement. In 1946, the Soviet Union unilaterally incorporated the Chishima Islands and Habomai and Shikotan Islands into Soviet territory.

The Azerbaijani Republic was recognised by many foreign States and established diplomatic relations with them. But on 27 and 28 April 1920, in flagrant violation of international legal norms, the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, without declaring war, moved units of its armed forces into Azerbaijan, occupied the territory of the sovereign Azerbaijani Republic and overturned by force the lawfully elected government bodies.

These I found only after a quick search in the net. I’m sure there’s more. But even these set a clear trend: the USSR and Stalin respected force only. Treaties were nothing but paper to them.

Also take your time and visit these pages:

http://www.rel.ee/eng/communism_crimes.htm

http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/ethnic_cleansing.htm

After submerging in those sites it becomes apparent what kind of tyranny the USSR really was. Treaty violations and similar misconducts become almost meaningless when compared to the vast amount of human suffering inflicted by the Soviet rule.

Hmm. This is going further and further off topic.

Ari

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]

[Skipper]

> After submerging in those sites it becomes

> apparent what kind of tyranny the USSR

> really was.

Hmm... www.jihad.to - great source of factual information you picked!

Stalin's USSR was a tyranny, no doubt. But after, as you say, "submerging" in such sites as you posted, one surfaces totally misguided and covered in crap.

[Tero]

>Hmm...

>www.jihad.to

>- great source of factual information you

>picked!

Can you point out any actual factual mistakes on the information presented on that site ?

>Stalin's USSR was a tyranny, no doubt. But

>after, as you say, "submerging" in such

>sites as you posted, one surfaces totally

>misguided and covered in crap.

Granted, it is not the most politically correct of sites. But you have to look at the facts they use in their argumentation, not only the rethorics.

BTW:

>Originally posted by Skipper:

>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.

Nice try to deflect the rather effectivce rebuttal to your statement.

Care to comment on that aspect of his reply to your statement ?

[Tero]

>AFAIK it's common to keep all bits of

>paperwork generated by governements - even

>if not adopted as policy they are still part

>of the officila record, and can indicate

>what options were considered along the way

>to the final decision.

Ah !

What makes you think it was an actively made "final decision" ? I think it has been proven that Stalin had to repeatedly resort to a hastily prepared Plan B when he went against the Finns after Plan A had backfired or simply failed to fulfill the original set of goals.

>I'm not saying that the Sov's did NOT want

>complete conquest of Finland at soem

>stage......just that a DRAFT document does

>not support the viewpoint that they

>definitely did want to do so.

Please do a search on the net (for example Yahoo) using the term "Terijoki government". Compare the time line of that organ with the timeline of Winter War and how it affected the Soviet diplomatic behaviour during Winter War. Then come back and state what they definitely wanted to do with the Finns. And why that desire was never materialized in subsequent histories.

[zahl]

Somebody remember that reference to ethnic cleansing in Konev's memoirs? According to Konev, Stalin had remarked during the Winter War how the Finns would be "moved away" after breaking the resistance. I don't have the book so can't quote it here.

[Skipper]

It is not funny. For the fear of starting a flame war, i wouldn't dicsuss "sources" that start with caption "Soviet rapists", this photo:

[Skipper]

> Nice try to deflect the rather effectivce

> rebuttal to your statement.

Okay, although the point is quite moot.

> Juha already mentioned how the USSR

> violated it’s peace treaty with Finland

Yup. I didnt say USSR was a diplomatic angel.

> The Soviets invaded Poland on September

> 17. 1939

When it (Poland) already ceased to exist as a sovereign state, thanks mainly to Germany, but also France and Britain.

> Btw. it’s very interesting to note that

> the Katyn prison camps were prepared (by

> executions) to take in 20 000 Finns in

> February 1940.

You know, there were many enough prison camps much nearer the theater. This connection by whoever made it is telling something about by the author.

> Japan and the Soviet Union were not at war

> throughout almost the entire period of the

> war because a neutrality pact was

> concluded between the two countries in

> April 1941.

Relations remained quite hostile and there were multiple REAL incidents, which could be (and were) interpreted as violations of the neutrality pact by Japan.

> the Soviet Union, violating this

> neutrality pact, entered into war against

> Japan

> that was already on the brink of defeat.

Somehow, it wasn't how americans thought about it in summer 1945. After the war in Europe was over, western allies were pushing Stalin to comply with his liabilities concerning Japan as soon as possible.

> The Soviet Union militarily occupied not

> only the Japanese Chishima Islands but

> also Habomai and Shikotan islands, which

> were not even referred to in the Yalta

> Agreement.

iirc, Yalta Agreement did not prohibit USSR from doing that.

> The Azerbaijani Republic was recognised by

> many foreign States...

Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic itself was not recognised by foreign states in 1920. Ie, this is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Everyone knows how surprisingly treacherous Hitler was. France occupied Ruhr. Britain failed to perform on several vital security guarantees in 1939-40. And I wont even mention Imperial era here. I could go on, but what for?

[Ari Maenpaa]

Ok. It may be that the second link I provided, is emotionally too charged to generate objective discussion. Deleted.

Still, by my understanding, it didn’t contain straightly false information. Only strongly interpreted.

My point was to show that the Red Army wasn’t only a liberating force which cleared the Eastern Europe of evil Nazis. No, it was also a vanguard of reign of terror, which in many ways was similar to the Nazi rule. And that should never be forgotten when we discuss about the USSR’s intentions.

Could we now discuss, for example, about how many treaties/conventions the Soviet Union in fact honored? The basic Human Rights surely weren’t among them.

Ari

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

Skipper,

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

You know, there were many enough prison camps much nearer the theater. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, how naive I was. Of course the USSR had a lot more those killing camps. Should have remembered that. My source (Vihavainen: Stalin ja Suomalaiset, 1998) states: "NKVD (Soviet Secret Police 1934 – 1946) ordered and also partly carried out the ‘clearing’ of the Katyn and some other camps when the Winter War was still raging. From documents of the ‘Katyn case’ turns out that seven camps were preparing to take in 20 000 Finnish 'POWs' during February ‘40." (free translation is mine). So it does not necessarily mean the Katyn camps exactly.

But by no means don’t let it hide the main fact: In 1940 the USSR was preparing to cleanse Finland just like it had cleansed the Soviet part of Poland.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ... Everyone knows how surprisingly treacherous Hitler was. France occupied Ruhr. Britain failed to perform on several vital security guarantees in 1939-40. And I wont even mention Imperial era here. I could go on, but what for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, no reason to go on. I don’t think that any of us can count the treaties which have been broken somewhere in sometime. And as can be seen, there can be countless of excuses for doing so.

My point wasn’t that the USSR violated more treaties than someone else (although I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case). But that it wasn’t Stalin’s or Soviet Union’s way to adhere to them.

As Roosevelt said at the time of Stalin's invasion of Finland: "No human being can tell what the Russians are going to do next."

Was there anyone who truly trusted the USSR on the basis of the treaties it had ratified? Especially after the WW2, during which the tyranny revealed it’s true face?

Ari

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]

[Skipper]

Ari, your other two links are not much better, honestly.

As for Stalin's reputation during and after the war, as well as a lot of other information I advise you to read Churchill's fundamental tome "Second World War".

[Ari Maenpaa]

Skipper,

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

Ari, your other two links are not much better, honestly.". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The two http://www.rel.ee/eng/communism_crimes.htm and http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/ethnic_cleansing.htm

will remain because I have got the impression that those ghastly crimes against humanity are not necessarily familiar to everyone around here. False history written by the winning party, particularly the USSR, may still cause fallacies.

Also they seem to be well established on facts and have thorough reference lists. Can you deny their validity?

I haven't read Churchill's books yet. Thanks for recommendation. Did Churchill have good impression of the USSR and Stalin?

Ari

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]

[Tero]

>As for Stalin's reputation during and after

>the war, as well as a lot of other

>information I advise you to read Churchill's

>fundamental tome "Second World War".

I have seen it dubbed "Second World War - How I won the war" in some reviews. I doubt it can be said the definitive nor the most objective and even accurate of accounts of the events during WWII. And still Churchill memoires are still revered as one of the basic sources in Western WWII research. Then again the most cited book on the Finnish involvement in WWII is Mannerheims memoires. As if there were no more recent books around on the subject which are more objective and accurate.

And they say there was/is no personal cults cherished in the West...

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Stalin's Organ]

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

>And they say there was/is no personal cults cherished in the West...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said a dumb thing like that??

[Tero]

>Who said a dumb thing like that??

Basically every historian who has listed the Stalin personal cult as fault in the Soviet system.

[Skipper]

> Can you deny their validity?

I can. But this sort of discussion is (rightfully, imho) not greeted by moderators. If you dont know the difference between this and real history, it wont help you anyway.