Finland

[Norse]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Finland was the third most powerful ally to Germany after Japan and Italy.

No offense, but isn't that similar to saying Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world (in 1990)? What's the drop off between 1, 2, 3 and Finland?

Gunslinger</font>

[Gunslingr3]

No offense, but can't you read? He already explained this to you.

None taken.

I still can't find where he did mention the size of the Finnish army with respect to Germany, Japan, or Italy. I missed it entirely, even after rereading the thread. I see him claiming a 20 to 1 causualty rate attained by the Finns, but that isn't what I'm asking.

I peeked for grins into a resource when I got home and found Rumania posting more men under arms in 1941 than Finland for the Axis (686,000 and 400,000 respectively). By '44, when Rumania and Finland were knocked out of the war those numbers stood at 1,225,000 and 270,000, respectively.

If you give the Finns an HQ, you are also handing them the ability to march to the Urals alone (they could get supply from the HQ). Is that realistic?

With regard to demands for more map in the north, is there any consideration for the strategic limitations imposed by the terrain? Rolling across the artic circle isn't exactly the same as rolling through the Steppe. Wasn't the fighting limited to a few key points, and wouldn't increasing the size of the map in the north open up avenues of advance that, in reality, didn't really exist?

Gunslinger

[Norse]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

I peeked for grins into a resource when I got home and found Rumania posting more men under arms in 1941 than Finland for the Axis (686,000 and 400,000 respectively). By '44, when Rumania and Finland were knocked out of the war those numbers stood at 1,225,000 and 270,000, respectively.

In the wars between Finland and Sovjet, the Finns won battles where they were outgunned and outnumbered 50 to 1. So you see, it is not only about numbers alone. There is no denying that Finland did very well for a nation of their size.

If you give the Finns an HQ, you are also handing them the ability to march to the Urals alone (they could get supply from the HQ). Is that realistic?

Perhaps it is. The Germans asked the Finns to attack into Sovjet with them, but Finland had no interest in this, as their leaders agenda was to keep their nation alive and that did not include pissing the Sovjets off by invading them (who know's if the tide of war will turn anyway). Now what if they had different leaders, who were full of vengance and unleashed their soldiers deep into Sovjet soil? Are you saying this is impossible? What about Rumenia then, who were deep into Sovjet soil. They have no HQ either.

With regard to demands for more map in the north, is there any consideration for the strategic limitations imposed by the terrain? Rolling across the artic circle isn't exactly the same as rolling through the Steppe. Wasn't the fighting limited to a few key points, and wouldn't increasing the size of the map in the north open up avenues of advance that, in reality, didn't really exist?

Gunslinger

Good questions.

Finland were invaded from the locations that we see on the SC map, the Sovjet main thrust went in here. But the Sovjets attacked with armies further north as well.

Increasing the map up north, would open up strategic possibilities that did excist.

In Norway and Sweeden, people were very scared of the 'red threat'. They feared that if Finland collapsed under the weight of Sovjet, then Sovjet would march on and attack Norway and Sweeden.

Unrealistic? I think not. I base my conclution on the later events of the war.

After the Germans were beaten in Finland, and the Finns wanted the Germans out in order to secure their own excistance (just ask if you want to know why ), then the Germans withdrew into Norway. The Russians followed them closely, and attacked northern-Norway. The Germans used scorched earth policy here, evacuating all the civilians and burned down everything that could be of use to the Sovjets. The Sovjets did take some cities in Norway, but by now the war was over, so the Sovjets pulled out and Norway was once again free.

So you see, this threat and danger of the Sovjets deciding to take the Scandinavian peninsula was very real indeed! Both the allies, the axis, and the Sovjet had interests in Scandinavia. The game could open the map up here and include the possibilities of Sovjet taking Finland, and deciding to attack Sweeden and Norway. Allowing this 'what-if' in the game would not be historical incorrect, as the threat of this event happening was very real in ww2.

This would also allow the possibility to operate units from Norway, Sweeden and to Finland (discussed in another thread).

~Norse~

[Gunslingr3]

In the wars between Finland and Sovjet, the Finns won battles where they were outgunned and outnumbered 50 to 1. So you see, it is not only about numbers alone. There is no denying that Finland did very well for a nation of their size.

They won those battles from behind extensive fortifications that were constructed in depth in inhospitable terrain against a foe comprised of conscripts impressed into service and led by an almost headless officer corps. Timoshenko came on the scene, regrouped the Red Army, and with better application of combined arms pushed through those defenses and won a favorable peace for the USSR during the Winter War.

I have never denied, or implied, that Finland didn't do very well for a nation of their size. That, however, is a far cry from being able to march on the Urals.

Finland's manpower reserves were bled white just maintaining their static defense. Explain to me how they'd support this march from Helsinki to the Urals. I'm anxious to be enlightened...

Gunslinger

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Norse:

Good questions.

Finland were invaded from the locations that we see on the SC map, the Sovjet main thrust went in here. But the Sovjets attacked with armies further north as well.

Increasing the map up north, would open up strategic possibilities that did excist.

In Norway and Sweeden, people were very scared of the 'red threat'. They feared that if Finland collapsed under the weight of Sovjet, then Sovjet would march on and attack Norway and Sweeden.

Unrealistic? I think not. I base my conclution on the later events of the war.

After the Germans were beaten in Finland, and the Finns wanted the Germans out in order to secure their own excistance (just ask if you want to know why ), then the Germans withdrew into Norway. The Russians followed them closely, and attacked northern-Norway. The Germans used scorched earth policy here, evacuating all the civilians and burned down everything that could be of use to the Sovjets. The Sovjets did take some cities in Norway, but by now the war was over, so the Sovjets pulled out and Norway was once again free.

So you see, this threat and danger of the Sovjets deciding to take the Scandinavian peninsula was very real indeed! Both the allies, the axis, and the Sovjet had interests in Scandinavia. The game could open the map up here and include the possibilities of Sovjet taking Finland, and deciding to attack Sweeden and Norway. Allowing this 'what-if' in the game would not be historical incorrect, as the threat of this event happening was very real in ww2.

This would also allow the possibility to operate units from Norway, Sweeden and to Finland (discussed in another thread).

~Norse~

"Dietl was familiar with the Petsamo region and described it to Hitler as looking like the world on the first day of creation with no trees, no vegetation - nothing except bare rock, huge boulders, and rushing water. The long winter season, he explained, turned the land into an icy desert with temperatures falling to below 50 degrees of frost. The winter was one long dark night which lasted for eight months. In the short summer the sun did not set and day-time temperatures rose to above 30 degrees. In place of the winter snows, rain fell almost continuously throughout the summer, feeding the extensive and groundless swamps. It was a miserable desert both in winter and in summer. 'There has never been a war fought in the high north,' Dietl declared. 'The region is unsuited to military operations. There are no roads and these would have to be constructed before any advance could take place.' He pointed out that if his men were taken to build roads, there would be no soldiers to do the fighting. The Gebirgsjaeger general drew the Fuehrer's attention to the lack of prime movers to tow the artillery pieces, to the absence of SP guns, and to the shortage of men."

"His appreciation of the situation was correct. The future theatre of operations was so forbidding a region that Finnish military authorities declared it to be an impossible place in which to fight a war. Before the onset of the winter season they withdrew all their military forces garrisoning Lappland to areas below the 65th parallel. The area abandoned by the Finns each winter was more than 800 kilometres wide and stretched from the town of Sumoussalhi on the 65th parallel to Petsamo in the far north."

Nevertheless, Hitler sent 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th SS, and 7th Gebirgs Divisions to this area.

"The 2nd and 3rd Gebirgs divisions of Dietl's Corps held the most northerly flank of the German Army on the Eastern Front. Their task was to advance and cover what Hitler described as the 'laughable 100 kilometres' between the Finno-Russian frontier and the town of Murmansk. The battles to reach that target brought the Corps to the River Liza, some 60 kilometres from the objective."

So wow, a 40 km advance by some of the better troops the Germans had...less than a hex...and you think expanding the map to this region and allowing massive offensives would be historically correct? Oh, BTW, there's a HUGE difference between advancing against an enemy determined to hold his ground, and an advance against troops pulling out to evacuate an area.

Expanding the map into the northernmost regions of these countries should add little to gameplay because the land simply could not support large formations on SC scale, and the conditions were so bad, that even the smaller formations had impossible problems to overcome. That said, I would like the map to be expanded (even though we all know it can't be in SC) because it would allow more leeway with the naval war, but as far as the land goes, it should be made impassible or close to it.

All quotes taken from "Hitler's Mountain Troops" by James Lucas.

[Wolfe]

So how about moving the exposed Corps back behind the marshes, move the Army 2 spaces closer to the capital, but still along the coast. And give them default entrenchment values of 2? This would make for decent defensive positions and help both with supply. Just a thought.

- Chris

[Willard]

CvM, Norse and Viking-

No offencse, but I think your love of Finland (either do to heritage, admiration or nationality) is blinding you to the realities of history and the game.

Historically and in a game focusing on a STRATEGIC scale, the Finns were not as important as other countries. I would agree that their army was stronger than the Bulgarian/Romanian/Hungarian troops and should be reflected as such. I would even argue that in historical/random play in SC that a Russo-Finnish winter war should be included...simply a message indicating as such with perhaps a tug of war over a few hexes. However, to give the Finns an HQ and more troops is to create a powerhouse that never was. The Finns held their own against the Russians, sometimes against overwhelming odds. However to see the Finns marching over the Russian steps is a bit fantastic.

There is no doubting the genius of Mannerheim or steely resolve of the Finnish fighting troops. However to adequately reflect this in the game, it would be better to increase entrenchment level of existing troops and experience to outweigh the crushing onslaught of the Red hordes. And remember by March of 1940 even Mannerheim acknowledged the Finns could not hold out any longer and sued for peace.

If you want a game that gives you the abilities to do this, I would recommend you look at Hearts of Iron by Paradox. This would allow you to do what I think you are after. As for SC, this is really not a viable option for the above reasons.

[Aloid]

Man, you Fin-lover's are funny...

If you took the Finish Army out onto the Russian Steppes (like the Rumanians, Hungarians, etc.), their "TINY" force would be obliterated. They had nothing that would equip them to compete in open combat of such magnitude.

Yes they held the Russians back in the early winter war. They did nothing of the sort when the Russians came back later in the war. In fact, they completely collapsed.

To rank the Fins against the Rumanians and Hungarians is completely near-sighted (or is tunnel vision a better term).

My vote: No HQ, yes BBQ

Hmmm... I think that qualifies as my first rant... heh!

Enjoy!

Aloid (now, where's my beer!)

[ August 21, 2002, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Aloid ]

[googabooga]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

...They won those battles from behind extensive fortifications that were constructed in depth in inhospitable terrain against a foe comprised of conscripts impressed into service and led by an almost headless officer corps. Timoshenko came on the scene, regrouped the Red Army, and with better application of combined arms pushed through those defenses and won a favorable peace for the USSR during the Winter War.

Gunslinger

being finnish myself i'll try to avoid that stupid and uncontributing "religious" zeal that some fin-fans seem to have

gunslinger iam *not sure* if you are aware but (about M-line):

"And if counting concrete bunkers which had machine guns or cannons (thus excluding passive concrete shelters), a total of 48 bunkers, there was one such bunker for each 3 km of front, i.e. roughly 0,35 armed bunkers / km"

but then again:

"The Isthmus Gateway, between river Summa and Lake Muolaanjärvi (a sector some 15 km wide), was the most heavily defended, and it had an average of 10 mg bunkers / nests, 7 shelters and 6 km of trenches (including the connection trenches) per kilometer of front"

people (not necessarily you gunslinger, i might be wrong about you. iam just using your quote ) often think that the "most (in)famous" part of the M-line was just like any other part of the line and thus say the whole line was exstensive or massive.

rest of the gunslingers post pretty much nailed it. finland played an important role in defending its borders and "stopping the communism in scandinavia" as some of you might say but finland had no chance in hell to do *anything* outside its borders. (did i go too far by saying *anything*?)

innocent question: whats with your name CvM? IF you modeled your nick by Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim you should know that there was absolutely, positively _no_ "von" in his name.

here is a good site for you www.mannerheim.fi

[ham]

Yes they held the Russians back in the early winter war. They did nothing of the sort when the Russians came back later in the war. In fact, they completely collapsed

http://www.winterwar.com

You are right in the sense that Russians did achive breakthrough in the karelian front, some other fronts they were stopped or pushed back. In the end finnish forces were spread very thin and the situation especially near the Gulf of Viipuri was dim. But 'completely collapsed' simply doesn't make any sense

Gunslinger et all. Agreed, Finland wouldn't have any chance alone against superpower ( 4 000 000 vs 150 000 000 ), but we managed to hold our own. That's what's missing in SC, Finland is just a place what soviets crush when they want and this wasn't the case (summer '44 anyone?). Be it HQ or higher entrenchment values, something has to be done. Currently its almost impossible to advance to Svir becouse of the suppily.

[ August 21, 2002, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: ham ]

[Norse]

Before I go on, I would like to ask all you historican wannabe's to drop your attitude. Already have many of your speculations that you take for facts, been revealed as mere non-sence. This discussion should IMO be worthy to hold a more serious tone than this.

There is some attitude that I am a Finn-lover or whatever.

I am not Finnish, nor have I got any extra-ordinary fasination with this country. I acknowledge their superb performance during world war 2. This is my stance, nothing more, nothing less. It is also a beutiful nation to spend your hollidays in

I put the sayings you have in quotation marks and answer them independently.

The Finns can not march to the Urals, or even do *anything* outside their borders.

I never said that they should just march on the Urals. I asked WHY NOT ??? This question is not for me to answer but for you who are determined that this feat is impossible.

I will answer your question anyway:

When the Germans launched Barbarossa (you know... the strike on Sovjet... ), Army Group North had Leningrad as their objective. The Finns had allied themselves with Germany, and had attacked and routed the Russians, so they advanced closer to Leningrad and into Karelia.

Leeb, the German commander of Army Group North, asked the Finns that they join him in an assault on Leningrad itself. A quick joint trust into Leningrad, in late July, when it's defences were disorganized, could probably have siezed the city.

The Finns however, said no. They had no interest in attacking further than their own borders, and thus pissing Sovjet off really bad (like said, who is to know what the outcome of the war will be anyway, and the Finnish leaders had 1 agenda: to secure the excistance of their own nation, nothing else).

Because the Finns did not join in on the assault, then Leeb put the city under siege instead, and Hitler asked that Leeb would transfer some forces to Army Group Center to help in the attack on Moscow.

So you see, this is my point. With some different strategy, that would release the Finns deeper into Sovjet soil, then the Finns could join the Germans and attack some Sovjet forces. Leningrad would be a nice place to start.

Finland's strategic position is of no importance

Right, more nonsence. The axis forces in Finland have the opertunity to cut Murmansk off, effectively ending the Lend-Lease route in the area (second area was thru Iraq/Persia, Rommel's responsibility). As you will hear from many Americans, the lend-lease was of much importance for the Sovjets, and if this supply of fresh equipment were cut off, then the Sovjets would be even more hard pressed.

Overrunning Finland offer Sovjet with the opertunity to march on and take the rest of the Scandinavian peninsula. This would provide them with a relatively safe area from where they can directly threaten mainland Germany (possibly with the other allies assistance), and all the minerals and resources would go straight to Sovjet and it's warmachine.

As a sidenote, the Germans were afraid that D-Day would be launched in Norway, from where the allies would gain this upperhand close to Germany.

Finland was unable to defend itself, and Sovjet won a favorable peace

Finland was to be annexed to Sovjet the same way the Baltic states were annexed to Sovjet. The Finns fought the Sovjets and after the Sovjets had lost over 200.000 men, the time was come to ask for a peace-agreement that was favorable to Finland! Sovjet got a little wee-bit of territory, while Finland kept excisting as a nation, and it does so to this very day! Sovjet winning a favorable peace... heh

The Finns cannot be ranked to the Rumenians, the Rumenians were of much more importance to the Third Reich

I see that some of you are beginning to diss Finland and put Rumenia up against them. Fine, if that is the way you want to go, then all I haveto say is STALINGRAD.

If it weren't for the Rumenians, then the Germans wouldn't have faced the disaster at Stalingrad! The Rumenians didn't manage to defend the flanks of Stalingrad, and the Germans were dealth a lethal blow that the Sovjets didn't exploit for all it was worth. NEVER did the Finns give the Germans a catastrophy of this magnitude.

Now can we get back on-topic and discuss what this thread is all about? Or shall we continue to rank the Finns up agains the Rumenians and the Japs?

.

Further, I am critized for saying that the map in SC should open up Scandinavia. First of all, I never said that the map should open up. I said that IF Hubert decided to do so, then it

WOULD NOT BE HISTORICAL INCORRECT. Alright?? *sigh*

About the land in Scandinavia being like desert, where the sun never sets etc. *yawn* You have most likely never been in Scandinavia, all you got is one quote, and a political one at that. And Wolfpack, when you say that the fighting here were so hard that they only advanced 40 miles for a certain time, then you are not saying the terrain is impassable to move on. Already they moved 40 miles. What you are saying is that the axis forces this north on the Finnish front did not have substantial firepower to overrun the Sovjets with. Dietl faced two full Sovjet armies (14th and 19th) to this very north, and he did not have the forces to easily overrun them and advance 50 miles per day. The front that Dietl commanded stalemated more than any other place on the Finnish front, due to the lack of superior firepower to crush the enemy with.

It was not impossible to move large armies in the area, it never was, already large armies slugged it out against each other in the area, and you argue that this historical fact is impossible. Difficult yes, impossible no.

.

Before you wannabe's continue to claim that I have said this and that, then let me clearly say it now what it is that I want of SC in Scandinavia.

I want the ability to operate units from Norway, thru Sweeden, and into Finland, and beyond if the territorial gains have been achived.

There, that is all I want. Everything else that you claim that I have said is mere fantazy.

I am open for discussions as to how the Finns can be more realistically able to defend their land as well. A HQ have been mentioned, not by me however. In another thread where this exact thing was discussed, then my suggestion was the the German player send a HQ, an army and possibly an airfleet to Finland in order to stop the Russians from taking Finland.

~Norse~

[Speedy]

Originally posted by Aloid:

My vote: No HQ, yes BBQ

Aloid (now, where's my beer!)

Ooohhh goody, I'll have some marinated steak with my beer thanks.

[Canuck_para]

While we are on this topic of Finland, why did the Germans and Finns not attack Murmansk from Norway? They were only 10 km away. Was it impossible to operate troops in these regions? It seems like this vital port should have been captured, not just interdicted.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Canuck_para:

While we are on this topic of Finland, why did the Germans and Finns not attack Murmansk from Norway? They were only 10 km away. Was it impossible to operate troops in these regions? It seems like this vital port should have been captured, not just interdicted.

Ups sorry misread that, alright Im off for a beer

[ August 21, 2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Wolfpack]

Okay, throwing aside the part abotu the Finns marching to the Urals which is just plain nonsense, I'll move on to some of your other points Norse.

The Finns fought the Sovjets and after the Sovjets had lost over 200.000 men,

lol...200,000 men? That would have been a slow day for Beria. Face it, the Finns fought well, extremely well, but against a concerted and well led soviet offensive they stood no chance to hold. Mannerheim knew that, why ally yourself with Hitler otherwise? Because it gave him the chance to take back what he couldn't take alone. As a result Finland lost about the same areas as they had in the Winter War (which they had just continued the war to get back) to the Soviet Union and was forced to pay huge payments to the Soviet Union (listed below) as well as to drive German forces out of Finnish soil which they did not want to do. In short, the Soviets had bigger fish to fry.

machines and equipment, including installation of completely equipped factories, $100.9 million;

new vessels, $60.2 million; paper industry products $59.0 million; wood industry products, $41.0 million;

cable products, $25.0 million; and ships surrendered from the existing merchant marine, $13.9 million.

STALINGRAD...NEVER did the Finns give the Germans a catastrophy of this magnitude

Never during the 41-44 period were the Finns faced with the power that fell on the allied troops around Stalingrad.

About the land in Scandinavia being like desert, where the sun never sets etc. *yawn* You have most likely never been in Scandinavia, all you got is one quote, and a political one at that. And Wolfpack, when you say that the fighting here were so hard that they only advanced 40 miles for a certain time, then you are not saying the terrain is impassable to move on. Already they moved 40 miles. What you are saying is that the axis forces this north on the Finnish front did not have substantial firepower to overrun the Sovjets with. Dietl faced two full Sovjet armies (14th and 19th) to this very north, and he did not have the forces to easily overrun them and advance 50 miles per day. The front that Dietl commanded stalemated more than any other place on the Finnish front, due to the lack of superior firepower to crush the enemy with.

It was not impossible to move large armies in the area, it never was, already large armies slugged it out against each other in the area, and you argue that this historical fact is impossible. Difficult yes, impossible no.

Learn to read and then comment on the quote. That wasn't 40 miles, more like 20...40 kilometres. in 3+ years, they advanced about 20 miles. The terrain isn't impassable, it's nearly impossible to attack over, but it's not impassable. As for large formations operating in the area...where? The Soviets had forces, but they were stretched along a railway line. The germans had about 6 divisions, which they couldn't even keep together because they couldn't keep them supplied. Like it said, even the Finns said the terrain was unsuitable for any kind of large scale offensive, and they live there...now throw me a little more of your sarcasm.

Operating units around the scandanavian countries would be fine with me although I kind of doubt the railway system could have held up under the strain of moving multiple armies around there, I'll defer that to someone who knows more about it than I do. If that's all you want, fine, but when you say that,

Increasing the map up north, would open up strategic possibilities that did excist.

well, that's just silly. nobody was going to be making any strategic offensives in Lappland if the other side didn't want them to. (Some)Germans were the only ones who thought it was possible, and you see how far it got them...

[Norse]

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

Okay, throwing aside the part abotu the Finns marching to the Urals which is just plain nonsense, I'll move on to some of your other points Norse.

Go back and comment EXACTELY what I said.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Finns fought the Sovjets and after the Sovjets had lost over 200.000 men,

lol...200,000 men?

</font>

[arax3]

Guys: Ever heard of "making a mountain out of a molehill?" Give it up. A3

[googabooga]

a3: don't kill off the converstaion with comments like that. it's just starting to heat up. our objective is to get this thread locked by noon tomorrow

-antti

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by harala:

a3: don't kill off the converstaion with comments like that. it's just starting to heat up. our objective is to get this thread locked by noon tomorrow

-antti

Might not make noon, but that's okay...I can't help it Norse can't admit he's wrong.

Now now Norse, don't get so touchy, I wasn't saying that you said the Finns were marching to the Urals, I said I was throwing that part out because it's an idea that's silly beyond belief.

"Finnish fatal casualties exceeded 24.000, Sovjet 200.000"

And? Fatal casualties aren't half the story. Total finnish casualties were up around 140-150,000 don't have the books here with me, but considering the population, that's a good hunk out of the population.

Wolfpacke, I asked you to raise the level of seriousness on this discussion. You, sadly enough, are unable to do this. Laughing at historical accurate figures, whining about sarcasm, etc.

You did no such thing, you just voiced your opinion and dared me to refute it which I did. I'm not laughing at the "historically accurate figures" I'm laughing at the fact that you think the Soviet Union was so horrified by the 200,000 casualties on the Finnish front that they gave up so I pointed out that 200,000 casualties was merely an inconvenience to the Soviets. Funny you talking about sarcasm when that seems to be the only form of communication you know. Throw out a tidbit of fact, then pound your audience over the head with bad sarcasm...hey, if it works for you, have at it.

I am American...

As am I...what's your point?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

more like 20...40 kilometres.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahhh, no wonder I can't read. Because you can't write! Is it 1 kilometer or 40? Bleh, no point.

Wow, nice use of selective editing there. You said it was 40 miles, I said it was more like 20 miles which is how far they got, which equals about 40 kilometres. And no, I didn't know the conversion, I had to look on the web. Blame my bad american public school education.

[googabooga]

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> "Finnish fatal casualties exceeded 24.000, Sovjet 200.000"

And? Fatal casualties aren't half the story. Total finnish casualties were up around 140-150,000 don't have the books here with me, but considering the population, that's a good hunk out of the population.</font>

[Gunslingr3]

I never said that they should just march on the Urals. I asked WHY NOT ??? This question is not for me to answer but for you who are determined that this feat is impossible.

Marching on the Urals came up because of the suggestion of providing Finland with an HQ. Providing them an HQ would make this possible in Strategic Command because the units would have supply.

I don't accept Finland marching troops one thousand miles to the Urals as a prima facie case. To assert it is possible deserves some explanation of how it would be achieved.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finland was unable to defend itself, and Sovjet won a favorable peace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finland was to be annexed to Sovjet the same way the Baltic states were annexed to Sovjet. The Finns fought the Sovjets and after the Sovjets had lost over 200.000 men, the time was come to ask for a peace-agreement that was favorable to Finland! Sovjet got a little wee-bit of territory, while Finland kept excisting as a nation, and it does so to this very day! Sovjet winning a favorable peace... heh

First, you made that quote up. It wasn't written by anyone. I don't know why you chose to respond to a quote you created. What I wrote was: "Timoshenko came on the scene, regrouped the Red Army, and with better application of combined arms pushed through those defenses and won a favorable peace for the USSR during the Winter War."

The Winter War ended on March 13, 1940, with the signing of the Moscow peace treaty.

Under the terms of this treaty, Finland had to cede parts of Karelia, Salla and Kuusamo, the Gulf of Finland and certain islands, and the Rybachy and Sredni peninsulas, to the Soviet Union. The ceded area totalled 40,000 square kilometres. Furthermore, Finland was required to lease Hanko peninsula to the Soviet Union for 30 years, for use as a naval base. The total area ceded was three times larger than the areas captured by the Soviet Union during the war.

Karelia had been one of Finland's most fertile agricultural regions and was also densely populated. The entire population of the region - 420,000 men, women and children - had to leave and move to other parts of Finland. The new borders undermined Finland's defence capability.

No one disputes the war went terribly for the Russians, but can you explain to me exactly how, aside from continuing to exist, this peace was favorable to the Finns?

Wolfpacke, I asked you to raise the level of seriousness on this discussion. You, sadly enough, are unable to do this. Laughing at historical accurate figures, whining about sarcasm, etc.

Sarcasm is okay for you to use, but no one else? Wolfpack's point (which you apparently missed with his sarcasm) was that 200,000 dead is indeed horrible, but nothing compared to the kind of random, wholesale liquidation Beria was carrying out for Stalin without even the prospect of taking Finnish territory. This is a regime that tossed away millions upon millions of lives without batting an eye, for no gain outside of spreading terror among their own people.

Gunslinger

[Gunslingr3]

gunslinger iam *not sure* if you are aware but (about M-line):

Here's an excellent site describing the fortifications in great detail:

http://www.winterwar.com/M-Line/M-Line2.htm#figures

Gunslinger

[Norse]

Wolfpack, lol, you are really funny

I said 200.000 Russians died in the Winter War.

Then you came along, and laughed this fact away like it was a lie and I was wrong.

Then I pointed to the book that I got this figure from.

And then suddenly, the number which was very important to you earlier, is now insignificant! The only thing that matters is that you want me to admit that I was wrong When I just proved that I was right! You aknowledge that I was right, and thus move along.

Same with the Finns against Urals, where I have already answered on that. It was a good answer, so suddenly that no longer matters either, and you move along to the next "point".

Lol

Wolfpack, you must understand that this is a discussion forum where things concerning SC is discussed.

You on the other hand seem to have some kind of personal vandetta against me, to prove, at all cost, that I am "wrong". What exactely I am wrong in doesn't seem to matter, as long as I really really am wrong!!

ROFL!!

This only makes me laugh, but alright, you can keep it on Find out something that I am wrong on, and if I really really was WRONG, then I will acknowledge that and you will "win" back some lost ego. lol

What an uninteresting life you must have to go pick on someone on the internet OOohh the action, oooohhh the THIRLL! The excitement woooo

~Norse~

[Canuck_para]

I think I just saw a yellow card on this thread.

[googabooga]

i tend to think about the treaty as being favourable to the finns. i think "continuing to exist" is in itself palpable and favourable enough aspect in the peace treaty.

Gunslinger is questioning the moscow peace treaty and rightly so (even though it may only be in the sake of an argument): besides some positive effects on finnish society (which we all are aware of) the treaty in itself didnt contain any positive things for finns. people just tend to overlook the independence part.

for clarification: i do not believe gunslinger is overlooking the independence part because he cleary said "..aside from continuing to exist.."

i believe you are only challenging Norses point

-antti