Better Sharpshooters for the Soviets?

[Slapdragon]

No Finnish tactic was much different than anyone elses tactic, just how they are implemented by the commander (read player). So lets say that BTS includes an 'UBER-Assault' button that doubles the firepower, halves the damage, triples the ammo, quadruples the sex appeal, and quintiples the cussedness of the troops using it, but only if they get within 20 meters. Then everyone will be able to use it, and the status quo is maintained.

Or, we could install a "Finland wins" button on the game, making this all moot. What people fail to realize in arguing for Uber Units is that they will cost Uber points, until a squad is the same cost as a Soviet KV tank.

The winter war, where Finland got its rep (later fighting was nowhere near as dramatic and was basically static for political reason), was an example of well equipped, good quality troops with skis and pullkas chopping into a hoard of misreable constripts. The Soumi is an excellent weapon but nothing makes it any more effective than the MP38/40 or the PPSH in game terms. Despite myth, it fired 9mm bullets and was a short range machinegun. It did not shoot down planes, destroy tanks, or date women.

Likewise, the Finns had an excellent 20mm ATR, but it did not shoot through both sides of a KV2, was not capable of destroying a tank 200km away, and it was not lighter than a Lahti.

There have been numerous attempts to argue for national bonuses, and they will always fail without HUGE proof. The US was good with vehicles, and the average US soldier usually had auto mechanics in school, but US troops did not get the special ability to hot wire enemy truck and tanks for the good reason that it would not be realistic.

[killmore]

Wow !

I actually seen "PzKpfw 1" putting down someone else than Soviets. I guess he is getting old...

I am against special bonuses for nationality. Period. Use conscripts against veterans.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

[QB]Wow !

I actually seen "PzKpfw 1" putting down someone else than Soviets. I guess he is getting old...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did I put down the Soviet's?. And why yes I am getting old.

Regards, John Waters

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

When did I put down the Soviet's?. And why yes I am getting old.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, you are not half as old as you look, so don't worry about it.

[ASL Veteran]

This thread has been completely overrun by Steely eyed Finn Ubertruppen who can take bullets to the forehead with nary a flinch!! Where are our Russian friends? We need this thread cleansed.

BTW, when the British were looking for an SMG design at the beginning of the war they thought that the Suomi was the best design they tested. However, since the Winter War was in full swing they came to the (rather obvious) conclusion that it would be impossible to obtain these SMGs from Finland so they had to settle on taking Thompson's from the US.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

BTW, when the British were looking for an SMG design at the beginning of the war they thought that the Suomi was the best design they tested. However, since the Winter War was in full swing they came to the (rather obvious) conclusion that it would be impossible to obtain these SMGs from Finland so they had to settle on taking Thompson's from the US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting. Do you know where I can find production figures for these SMGs? I am sure they are undermodelled in CM.....

[Simon Fox]

Gee this tero bloke just doesn't have the knack of putting his historical case or he's not speaking to the right people.

Obviously having an Aussie on the BTS payroll means things are more likely to get done properly. I've had some preliminary historical discussions with Steve and Dan regarding CM3. Which looks like being called CM :Dust, Sand and More Bloody Dust by the way. It looks like an extra troop rating category will have to be introduced for this one. Should go something like this:

Conscript

Green

Regular

Veteran

Elite

Crack

ANZAC

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Gee this tero bloke just doesn't have the knack of putting his historical case or he's not speaking to the right people.

Obviously having an Aussie on the BTS payroll means things are more likely to get done properly. I've had some preliminary historical discussions with Steve and Dan regarding CM3. Which looks like being called CM :Dust, Sand and More Bloody Dust by the way. It looks like an extra troop rating category will have to be introduced for this one. Should go something like this:

Conscript

Green

Regular

Veteran

Elite

Crack

ANZAC

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting you created a circular scale.

Of course, anyone who needs MacArthur to save their country was in sad shape anyway.

[Simon Fox]

Slappy,

Your innocuous barbs are just that.

Why?

Because whatever you say I know that you have admitted to a Tasmanian 'friend'.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Slappy,

Your innocuous barbs are just that.

Why?

Because whatever you say I know that you have admitted to a Tasmanian 'friend'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have low tastes. Besides, he sent me some of their beer. Good stuff.

[Jarmo]

I guess this really isn't about snipers any more..

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

You see, you've decided that BTS will underrate the Suomi months before you know how it will be rated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it'll be underrated!

IMHO, CM underrates all good quality weapons. Since muzzle velocity and the rate of fire are the only recognized qualities in the game, it's unavoidable.

Comparing Sten vs MP40. By all I know MP40 is the better one, but not in CM.

Same will probably happen with Suomi. It was a bloody long and heavy for an SMG. About as long as a modern assault rifle and twice as heavy.

The large drum magazine might give an advantage. But if it did I wonder why a replacement box magazine was created.

Still, with 900 shots/minute, I believe we'll get a weapon good enough.

One thing that will not be recreated, I believe, is finnish Stugs getting a 10 to 1 kill ratio against T-34's. Especially since the Stug tankers were mostly green. The veterans got to keep their obsolete T-26's.

[Tero]

Please note: the limit of smileys is 8 so I indicate their place with the phrase "insert smiley".

>I think you were assimilated a long time

>ago. You're just in a different collective

>than the rest of us

Some 36 years ago. "insert smiley"

>You see, this is the uberFinn mentality that

>bothers people so much. First of all the

>only way a soldier could fire at "maximum

>ROF" while "rushing" the enemy would be if

>he had a fully automatic weapon. Now

>assuming they all have automatic weapons, it

>is entirely reasonable that their firepower

>is cut in half while "rushing".

This is a constant vs flexible OB issue.

Finnish platoons captured abandoned semi- and full auto weapons or took them from the dead enemy soldiers during combat to boost their fire power. This was SOP because the Finnish army and the Red Army used the same caliber small arms so the ammo for the small arms was the same (except for the Suomi SMG). They could also use the bolts from the Red Army Mosin-Nagants to improve reliability of their bolt action rifles. This was because the Finnish made, often brand new or unused, bolt was of too high quality to work reliably in combat conditions (sand, debris etc).

I do not know about the other armies but the Finnish army unit commanders would habitually gather full- and semiauto weapons to ad-hoc strike teams during CM scope battles so that the counter attacks would be more effective in terms of both suppressive shock effect and killing power. The ammo was also redistributed as needed so that these teams would have a full combat load of ammo when the counter attack started.

That would mean in CM terms that the the Finnish troops would have basically unlimited ammo supply once they are within XX meters of KIA/suppressed enemy units. Or rather the enemy units ammo status would be added to the Finnish units ammo pool. And the Finnish troops would also have their also their arms status changed accoring to what the enemy unit is carrying. The Finnish squad would trade some of its bolt action rifles to enemy units semi- and full auto weapons. That applies of course also to enemy HMG's, AT- and field guns and mortars.

Also the "split squad" command for the Finnish units would not be done square from the middle of the squad, but accoring to the purpose to which the split is made. And that in-game reorganization would also be possible at platoon and company level.

And by the time this is implemented in CMX Finnish troops the pigs will have been flying to the moon for decades.

But all of this can be verified and substantiated as having been the real life tactical, doctrinal and SOP practises of the Finnish army during WWII. And all within the CM scope of combat to boot.

>A soldier doing this will not be able to

>fire accurately.

That is true. And that is why maximum ROF is used at the "strike moment" to counter the inherent inaccuracy with sufficient weight of fire.

In CM the small arms are rated according to their suppressive power and their killing power, right ? But the ROF modelled is pretty much constant for various types of weapons. That means that full auto capable weapons fire bursts only, there is no sustained, long burst fire available. This is why the cutting the fire power in half while rushing is not realistic. Not just for Finns. For any army that used such tactics.

>You seem to be suggesting that Finn units be

>allowed to move and fire at full

>effectiveness at the same time!

The effect is not in the accuracy, it is in the shock effect which is in the weight of fire thrown at the enemy at the decisive moment.

>This is not humanly possible, yet you want

>BTS to let the Finns do it.

To be exact I want BTS to let any and all units in the game do it, if that was their tactical/doctrinal SOP.

And please do not let the Finnish army know about this startling BTS revelation that maximum ROF at the decisive moment of the rush is not realistically possible to overcome the enemy. Otherwise they will have to revise their current training program to reflect this. "insert smiley"

>I really don't know what you're saying here.

>There is a withdraw command. Did the Germans

>withdraw/disengage in a way unique to them

>that Allied units were unable to do?

I find it odd that you people do not find it perculiar that you can only widraw/disengage to the direction of your baseline (ie. your edge of the map) and not in any other direction. I think it is imperative, ESPECIALLY in CM scope battles, that you can manouver defensively as well as you can manouver offensively. This is why I posed the question if the current set of attack oriented commands is nationally biased against the Germans. I know their SOP was to counter attack whenever possible. As things stand they can not defend effectively because they can only widraw backwards, not sideways or towards the enemy lines.

>You see, you've decided that BTS will

>underrate the Suomi months before you know

>how it will be rated. No matter how good BTS

>ends up rating it, it won't be good enough

>in your eyes.

You picked the wrong punch line.

The one you should have picked was:

"There was no SMG's in a Red Army squad during Winter War and still our squads get a weaker firepower rating. Only because according to the OOB's the Soviet units had more firepower than ours."

You got blinded by my rant about the Suomi SMG to forget it is really does not matter what the SMG is named because it is the class of the weapons that determines how it is handeled by the game engine, not its place of origin. "insert smiley"

The Winter War era text book Red Army platoon was more powerfull than the text book Finnish army platoon in terms of nominal firepower. And that is a fact. No disparity in experience levels will make that go away. Ultimately. Unless some other type of arrangements are made.

>You accuse BTS and anyone who agrees with

>their stand on nationality modifiers of

>being bias, yet you display a remarkable

>degree of bias yourself. Every single thing

>I have ever seen you post on this forum in

>relation to the game was in some way an

>arguement to make the Germans stronger and

>the Allies weaker. You really come across as

>a guy with an agenda. I can only imagine it

>will get worse in CM2 with Finns in the mix

>(heck, you've started already and the game

>won't be out for months).

If you noticed that "accuation" was in parentheses. I tried to convey that as a typical ranting complaint made by a dissatisfied player.

BTW as we speak about my extreme bias against the Allies the Americans (and/or other Allied nationalities) are doing the same kind of complaining about the absence and lack of effects of their respective SMG's in CM. And I do not see you or anybody accusing them of being biased to a remarkable degree. I wonder why that is so ...... NOT. Could it be that their kind of bias is different from my kind of bias ?

It is only a matter of perception and point of view. And perhaps availability and accessability of sources. "insert smiley"

>Nothing personal against you, tero, you seem

>like a nice guy, but a little objectivity

>would go a long way.

No worries, mate. I think this tread would have been locked down long ago if we took this issue too personally.

As for objectivity going a long way: I try to be objective as I can. The fact that I use the Finnish army experiences as examples is only frosting on the cake to illustrate points I am trying to make. They are for frame of refrence only. We are after all discussing differences in real life phenomenon and how they should be implemented to a world of abstractions. Debates like this are inevitable. And I am no stranger to them.

[Tero]

>No Finnish tactic was much different than

>anyone elses tactic, just how they are

>implemented by the commander (read player).

>So lets say that BTS includes an

>'UBER-Assault' button that doubles the

>firepower, halves the damage, triples the

>ammo, quadruples the sex appeal, and

>quintiples the cussedness of the troops

>using it, but only if they get within 20

>meters. Then everyone will be able to use

>it, and the status quo is maintained.

That is not a bad idea as a concept. Actually. Take away the sarcasm and you are left with a viable solution to that particular problem we can all live with.

And that solution is two staged Assault command: Approach phase as it is being designed by BTS followed by the Rush phase with everybody running, yelling and shooting like hell. If an enemy unit is in the effective zone (do be determined) of the last phase they will be subject to a massive morale hit and appropriate damages while the attacker gets a massive morale boost. If the last phase however is misdirected the attacking unit will suffer a massive fatigue hit coupled with a slight to moderate morale hit that renders it very vulnerable to counter attack or assault.

Well done, Slappy !

Did not see that one coming, did you ?

>Or, we could install a "Finland wins" button

>on the game, making this all moot. What

>people fail to realize in arguing for Uber

>Units is that they will cost Uber points,

>until a squad is the same cost as a Soviet

>KV tank.

The rarity point is moot as only effectiveness is modelled in the cost.

>The winter war, where Finland got its rep

>(later fighting was nowhere near as dramatic

>and was basically static for political

>reason), was an example of well equipped,

>good quality troops with skis and pullkas

Singular pulkka, plural pulkkas actually

>chopping into a hoard of misreable

>constripts.

What about the elite 44th Blue Division ? Not all the Red Army units were made out of conscripts who had not seen combat.

>The Soumi is an excellent weapon but nothing

>makes it any more effective than the MP38/40

>or the PPSH in game terms. Despite myth, it

>fired 9mm bullets and was a short range

>machinegun. It did not shoot down planes,

>destroy tanks, or date women.

Exactly. It was only a regular weapon. So how do you model adequately the man fielding that weapon ? Given the results it yielded. The Soviets did pay it homage by copying it as the PPSh after they had been in the receiving end.

>Likewise, the Finns had an excellent 20mm

>ATR, but it did not shoot through both sides

>of a KV2, was not capable of destroying a

>tank 200km away, and it was not lighter than

>a Lahti.

There were so many weapons designed by Lahti. LS-26 LMG, Lahti ATR, Suomi SMG.

>There have been numerous attempts to argue

>for national bonuses, and they will always

>fail without HUGE proof.

What is huge proof ? Kill ratios ? All the armies used weapons that delivered a comparable amount of damage. It is not what you use but how you use it that matters. In how many armies did the frontline soldier consider a log of wood a potential AT asset ?

>The US was good with vehicles, and the

>average US soldier usually had auto

>mechanics in school, but US troops did not

>get the special ability to hot wire enemy

>truck and tanks for the good reason that it

>would not be realistic.

Yes. Because they had enough of their own to go by. The Finns lacked any and all kinds of weapons, munitions and vehicles. The only thing going for them was the fact that the Red Army was using exactly the same rifles and exatly the same caliber ammo. They could and they did take from the enemy what they needed to survive. After Winter War our artillery and armoured force was made out of captured weapons and munitions. And we lost that damned engagement. How do you explain away our army using the newest enemy weaponry AFTER we had lost the war and DESPITE we were not occupied ? Donations they were not.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Kekk1]

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

The Soumi is an excellent weapon but nothing makes it any more effective than the MP38/40 or the PPSH in game terms. Despite myth, it fired 9mm bullets and was a short range machinegun. It did not shoot down planes, destroy tanks, or date women.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually a Soviet air-to-ground plane was shot down with the Suomi Smg in the Winter War. Some guy had just arrived to the front and apparently he didn't like aircraft so he emptied a full clip to a low-flying plane. The pilot was wounded in the head and the plane crashed ca. 1 klick from the front and it was found by ad-hoc units. No one else had fired at the aircraft so the kill was confirmed.

The guy was wounded lethally in a counter-attack later and died in a field hospital.

[Tero]

Seems we are finally starting to come out of the woodwork.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Very interesting. Do you know where I can find production figures for these SMGs? I am sure they are undermodelled in CM.....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A shameless plug.

But in spirit of seemless co-belligerence please try

http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html

All about the Suomi SMG

You owe me one.

[Slapdragon]

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

Yes. Because they had enough of their own to go by. The Finns lacked any and all kinds of weapons, munitions and vehicles. The only thing going for them was the fact that the Red Army was using exactly the same rifles and exatly the same caliber ammo. They could and they did take from the enemy what they needed to survive. After Winter War our artillery and armoured force was made out of captured weapons and munitions. And we lost that damned engagement. How do you explain away our army using the newest enemy weaponry AFTER we had lost the war and DESPITE we were not occupied ? Donations they were not.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is trying to explain away anything, but I was impressed by the Finnish victory parades at wars end through Leningrad. And the requirement of the Soviet surrender that Stalin kiss Mannerhiem's ass in public was a great requirement, too bad photos of these events no longer exist and everyone's mind is clouded into thinking the Finns lost the war.

Seriously, counting captured weapons does not prove small unit engagement practices. Everyone thinks the US was one of the weaker fighters in the game, yet they captured 8.5 million rifles (enough to give every Finn baby, man, child, and probably pulkka horse one), a million trucks, and ten thousand armored vehicles, enough to staff a hundred infantry divisions. The Russians claim to have captured a similar amount of stuff. Germans did not capture much from the US (not anywhere near the scale) and captured tons from the Russians. So we can assume from the Finnish example that:

The US was tactically the most efficient force in Europe, followed by the commonwealth.

The Germans came next.

The Russians were next. They captured more weapons than ever existed in Finland during World War two.

Finland is last, since while they got a lot of weapons during the winter war, they just barely captured back the land they lost then in their "continuation war", and never once threatened a major Russian city. At the same time, the germans will capturing millions of small arms.

[Ari Maenpaa]

John,

I hope this debate won't make you to take a vacation from this board as I very gladly read your informative posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Ok so now we have established that Soviet records are actualy falsified concerning any actions against the Finn's & only Finnish sources are reliable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is too strong expression, I believe. Only the PUBLIC OFFICIAL records were falsified. The USSR had a professional political propaganda machinery. They produced information which very adeptly combined truths, half-truths and untruths and it’s difficult to say which is which without thorough absorption in the matters. Many times though the propaganda shows so well through the information that it makes me laugh. Same kind of things are happening currently in China and North Korea. It’s unfortunate that the citizens of those countries are probably not aware of the lies they hear from their governments.

Anyway it’s very possible to find truthful information (which wasn’t widely available during the Soviet era) from the lately opened Soviet archives. But basing on his bibliography, it seems that Glantz didn’t spend too much time rechecking the information concerning Finland. Possibly he didn’t compare his findings to the Finnish sources at all. So his ”When Titans Clashed” tells the Soviet POV only, and even that is flawed.

Like Tero said, the Soviet casualty figures are now settling somewhat near to the Finnish wartime estimations. And surely they are not even close to the same ballpark with the official Soviet wartime figures. On the other hand the Finnish casualty information is/has been available for anyone and people can freely check what happened to their relatives for instance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Then everytime the subject comes up on troop quality or nationality modifiers; we get told repeatedly how uber Finnish troops were even super human, Ie, 5 Finnish cooks beat off an Soviet tank attack... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There happened several freak incidents particularly during the Winter War. But of course those weren’t everyday events. Naturally any modifiers can’t be formulated basing on these kind of exceptions. Otherwise the yanks would be a horde of Audie Murphies

Of course the Soviets too had some exceptionally brave men. Their system just didn’t encourage an individual to make same kind of initiative actions which were characteristic to the Finns. I just read Edvard Radzinski’s ”Stalin” and would say that the whole bolshevik system concentrated in eliminating the individual initiative and thinking from it’s subjects. Many people here have talked about the pre-war cleansings in the Red Army’s officers, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. Stalin’s and communist party’s touch was much deeper and it showed on the actual battlefield.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When It's brought up 'ya but Finland lost'it gets turned around to, no Finland didn't, the Soviet's beggged for peace, or blameing the Germans, or Finland accepted the Soviet surrender rather then beat up any more poor Russians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, that kind of impression is wrong. Both times Finland surrendered because it hadn’t other rational options. The country was too weak to face the USSR alone for long. But both times the USSR also aimed for MUCH more than just a favourable peace treaty. And that fact seems to get swept under the carpet in the Soviet sources (and in all other sources which are basing on them).

There were many reasons for the fact that Finland remained independent, but biggest of them was the Finnish army. Stalin himself made several recognizing comments about it. But the army alone wouldn’t have been strong enough to hold the Soviets from occupying Finland, had Stalin wanted to do it LATER regardless of the costs. For some reason(s) Stalin decided not. Molotov told later that one reason was the remarkable obstinacy the Finns had demonstrated during the war (are we seeing it here on the forum too? ) Stalin had figured that it would make more damage than benefit to the cause of socialism if the USSR tried to socialize Finland by force.

Ari

Postscript addendum:

It occurred to me that I used wrong term here. Finland was clearly the underdog when peace conditions were negotiated, but literally taken She DIDN’T surrender. Both times Finland had to accept harsh peace conditions, but isn’t that far from what is understood by surrendering?

My apologies for inaccurate term and I'm not sure what is exactly the right term to be used in this case.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, a lot of this is general "I don't like the way the game works, period" type of stuff. Some of it I more or less agree with, but...

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

And please do not let the Finnish army know about this startling BTS revelation that maximum ROF at the decisive moment of the rush is not realistically possible to overcome the enemy. Otherwise they will have to revise their current training program to reflect this. "insert smiley"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what's to stop the defending unit from using "maximum ROF" to "shock" the charging unit at the "decisive moment"?

I still think the whole idea of allowing a unit to move quickly and fire at maximum efficiency at the same time is positively nutty. If SMG squad rushes are gamey now (they are) just imagine if BTS actually did this. The game would turn into some sort of WWF wrestling team rumble. SMG squad effectiveness is going to be a bit toned down in CM2 and 99% of the people on this board think this is a VERY GOOD THING.

How does it feel to be a minority, eh amigo?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find it odd that you people do not find it perculiar that you can only widraw/disengage to the direction of your baseline (ie. your edge of the map) and not in any other direction. I think it is imperative, ESPECIALLY in CM scope battles, that you can manouver defensively as well as you can manouver offensively. This is why I posed the question if the current set of attack oriented commands is nationally biased against the Germans. I know their SOP was to counter attack whenever possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is another thing that if implemented would totally ruin the game.

What you are asking for is a way to circumvent the command delay. If people were allowed to "withdraw" in any direction you would see players using this command all the time, "withdrawing" all over the battlefield, in place of the other commands. Why not? It magically allows you to get around that annoying and highly unrealistic command delay If German SOP was to counter attack whenever possible, players can do that right now, using commands intended for that purpose. A withdraw/disengage command is meant for withdrawing and disengaging, nothing else. Withdrawing towards the enemy is not a withdrawal, and is therefore not allowed with the withdraw command. Simple enough?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW as we speak about my extreme bias against the Allies the Americans (and/or other Allied nationalities) are doing the same kind of complaining about the absence and lack of effects of their respective SMG's in CM. And I do not see you or anybody accusing them of being biased to a remarkable degree. I wonder why that is so ...... NOT. Could it be that their kind of bias is different from my kind of bias ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a very big difference between modeling the physical differences between armies (what they are talking about) and the behavioral differences between armies (what you are mostly talking about here). Physical differences are far easier to quantify and prove.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

Stalin had figured that it would make more damage than benefit to the cause of socialism if the USSR tried to socialize Finland by force.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to something ( forgot what), the thought was to do it peacefully instead. Through the finnish communist party, which was kept under a tight soviet leash. The right wing IKL party was outlawed in the peace terms. The communist party was supposed to somehow make people see the wisdom in joining Finland to Soviet Union. Revolution was not out of the question. Counterpropaganda was not possible due to political pressure from the east.

Communist party was politically succesful, but nothing else came out of it. All thoughts of hostile takeover were later abandoned when soviets realised it's cool to have a small scared neighbour that keeps sucking up to you.

BTW, this sucking up policy probably has much to do why the finnish side of the story has had little attention. It was the finnish policy to say nothing that might anger our eastern buddies.

Oh yeah. I agree with all that Ari said.

[Slapdragon]

Communist intellectual thinking of the time, which Stalin paid little attention to, but which great influenced his advisors, was that communism was a natural follow on to any capitalist society. This was based on Marx, who felt that the social ills of great differences in levels of wealth shown by the leading industrialists of the day could not be sustained by society.

Finland and other countries were test beds for this premise. Leave them somewhat alone, and voila, you will have communism. It would be easier than marching in, killing everyone at the top or dragging them off to gulag, and putting a Soviet industrial system into place.

Of course, by the time that Finland was in its rock and a hard place, the whole communism / captialism thing was moot. Communism expected that the wealth difference of 1900 would continue to increase, but things like limited socialism, mechanization, increased education, and the like got in the way. Finland went communist to the point of some of its leaders mouthing the party line, but they did that in exchange for Soviet grain shipments (which is ironic since the Soviets lived year to year needing western grain shipments itself).

Post war Finland, at least the part I visited, seemed only a little less developed than Sweden. The any following of the Soviet party line was obviously limited, since it did not interfere with Finlands industry one bit. Maybe they have a bit more aggressive socialism than Sweden. Maybe they have higher taxes, but that seems to be it.

[Jarmo]

Yeah. The communism&workers movement had it's haeight in finland during 60's and 70's. Then it gradually waned, as it was bacoming more and more obvious that things were much better here than in the "workers paradise".

Good saying comparing the situation: "Some people fly into space, some others have soap."

After the collapse of Soviet Union theres hardly a trace left of the finnish communist party.

Socialism itself is still doing well.

[Slapdragon]

One thing most Americans, and many Europeans wont learn in school is the history of Finland. I am doing from memory, so my dates may be off, but here it is. Prior to 1800 Finland was part of the Swedish Empire. Sweden lost Finland to Russian during the Napoleonic wars (a side issue really, not directly related) and Finland was a province of Russia. During WW1, Fins fought on the side of the Czarist troops, but with the October revolution, Finland drifted away.

Lenin, in late 1917, promised that the various nationals of the Russian Imperial Empire would be allowed to form their own nations. Of course, that was a lie just to give him some breathing space, as is demonstrated by the Ukraine (forced back into the new Soviet Russian Empire from 1919 to 1920). Finland though, with the aid of German troops, defeated the Bolshies in 1918, and Russia had its own problems until 1920, by which time Finland was a moot point.

Russia always saw Finland as a country which would natrually fall into their camp, since Finns in that era heted the Swedes, were distrusted by the Germans, and were basically alone and powerless in their little sliver of land.

Of course Sweden was no where near coming on board the Russian revolution. Their leader during the late 1930s, Mannerheim, was a right wing nationalist only slightly less paranoid than Hitler on some subjects, who certainly had no stomach for Russia.

On the Russian side was a contempt for the Finns, partially racial in nature, partially ideological that they should have a right wing and slightly belicose regime on their border (this same contempt from Russia is evident in their dealings with Rumania and Poland, both of which had right wing, western looking governments during the 1930s.

This contempt of Finland came to a head during the winter war. With the rest of Europe paying attention to Germany, and Poland as an example, Russia attacked Finland. Aside from the uber arguments, Russia's failures can be seen as poor loigistical and training standards causing an inability to project a fighting force covering a wide front past their borders. The Russian were extremely surprised that they did not get a walk over, the Finns extremely surprised that German let them whither on the vine after lots of talk of aryan brotherhood (neo-Nazi type aryan movements spring up from time to time in all of the Nordic countries, and have since before they were called neo-Nazi), and the allies seriously thought of the Russians as possibly a worse threat than the Germans, although leaders such as Churchhill felt they were the best of the worst and wanted to ally with them and tell the Finns to go to hell. In the US the Finns had moral and financial support from the Democrats, but the Republicans still felt the Germans were not all that bad (few people remember than in US history prior to 1941 the Republican Party, including Linbergh, was a supporter of Hitlers, and several pro Hitler speaches were made my Republican Senators.).

[Slapdragon]

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

Yeah. The communism&workers movement had it's haeight in finland during 60's and 70's. Then it gradually waned, as it was bacoming more and more obvious that things were much better here than in the "workers paradise".

Good saying comparing the situation: "Some people fly into space, some others have soap."

After the collapse of Soviet Union theres hardly a trace left of the finnish communist party.

Socialism itself is still doing well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An interesting Finnish article compared the power of the Soviet Union with the weakness of Finland, but concluded that at least the Finns had toilet paper, which the citizens of Leningrad frequently cannot get at any price.

[Slapdragon]

Let me hastily add, the Republican party of today (of which I am a member) is the the party of 1939. Being critical of the appeasement of my own party in 1939 has no reflection on it, good or bad, today, and none should be construed.

I always have to add that, because on the WW2 history list server there was discussion of why Douglas McArthur was kept despite ignoring warnings of Japanese movements when Kimmel was sacked for warnings he did not receive in time. I mentioned that McArthur was against the "Ordus Cincinattus" which many US Generals adhere too guranteeing not to indulge in politics while on active duty, he had always been highly political in service and was an active Republican. His forbear Arthur McArthur, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, was also a staunch Lincoln Republican and the family had deep Republican roots. So I mentioned the back channel communication where a number of Republican Senators agreed to vote for war without debate if McArthur were retained and used as a "hero" for public relations. He was retianed, made into a hero, and everyone was happy (until Truman had to bust him).

This simple statement that McArthur was not roasted for allowing his forces to be caught unawares drew immense flack from several peopel who thought that I was attacking the Republican party. So here I disclaim any attempt at that.