Captured equipment

[Swift]

I gather that the allies didn’t use so much axis equipment. But what happened to it then? There must have been huge piles of scrapped guns/tanks in France.

[Schrullenhaft]

The French used Panthers into the '50's. Syrians (and others) used the Panzer IV up to the '67 war (IIRC), though not as the primary MBT. I believe the Swiss and some other eastern European countries used the Hetzer (or modified versions of it) up into the '60's.

Heck, some of the former Yugoslav republics were using T34/85s just a few years ago (primarily reservist). Used military hardware seems to crop up everywhere around the world.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I find it extremely ironic that the term "Finlandization" means to fold without a fight when faced with a alrger enemy after having scared away all your friends.

Assuming this is relevant:

First of all your definition of the term is inaccurate and inflammatory

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: Fin·land·iza·tion

Etymology: Finland

Date: 1969

: a foreign policy of neutrality under the influence of the Soviet Union;

also : the conversion to such a policy

But: was Finland Finlandized or Mexicanized ? Mexico is the only country which had been in an even remotely similar situation: having a long border with a superpower, winding up in a "minor border dispute" with the more powerful neighbour and losing some territory in the armed clash that followed. After that both Finland and Mexico assumed a policy of minimal friction when it came to foreign politics and taking into account the views of the neighbour. The fact that all this happened 100 years before WWII is irrelevant.

Second:

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/after.html

fold without a fight when faced with a alrger enemy

When ? The entire situation and phenomenon was a direct result of a refusal to fold without a fight.

after having scared away all your friends

Which "friends" would those be ? The British and the Americans ? They had abandoned us already in 1939-40. Friendly they were but their indefference to our fate and their inability to help us in matters other than diplomacy was glaringly obvious. Other Scandinavian nations ? They understood our situation and we understood their situation. They were not scared away, they kept their distance for reasons all parties understood.

The Germans ? I find it ironic they were the most avid users of the term in a time when their country was divided into occupation zones, one of which formed an separate, hostile, state. They had a bone to pick with us for not being loyal to them. Their sour grapes were obvious and their friendship not really sincere.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

The Germans ? I find it ironic they were the most avid users of the term in a time when their country was divided into occupation zones, one of which formed an separate, hostile, state. They had a bone to pick with us for not being loyal to them. Their sour grapes were obvious and their friendship not really sincere.<hr></blockquote>

I am sure this should really be in the general forum. Having said that...

I think you are over-estimating the German interest in Finland by a wide margin. 'Finlandisation' was used (rarely) whenever the left suggested that it maybe a good idea to not deploy nuclear weapons that would go off on German ground, or that maybe we should accept that the re-establishment of the borders of 1937 was not really a realistic goal of foreign policy, or that we should just talk with East Germany and the Soviets. Convenient stick to get out for the right, and beat the left with. I never understood what was so bad about Finland anyway

[Tero]

Originally posted by Abn_Ranger87:

On the subject of captured equipment. I have read and listened to (being a member of the VFW has it's rewards...) accounts of American troops utilizing German armament. Problem with using such systems is that friendlys are usually quite aware of the differing signatures produced by enemy weapons and would be quick to pour surpressive fire into your area before checking to see the operator's nationality, so their employment would be a risky affair...

This is a valid point. Generally.

The überFinnish army used the same arms and ammunition the Red Army used so these critreria do not apply in this case. Except for the LS-26 LMG and Suomi SMG all other arms sounded the same.

It was standard practise to exchange poor quality or broken weapons to captured ones on the spot. FP and ROF were also enhanced in this fashion when semiauto rifles and LMG/HMG's were picked up during the fight. It was also standard practise to take ammo replenishment from the enemy. Arty pieces were also taken into use whenever they were captured in a working order.

If CMBB modelled all this historically accurately that would mean the überFinn squads in CMBB should have its ammo supply topped up (ie become virtually unlimited) and have its FP and ROF rating enhanced whenever they come into close contact with Red Army squads which are dead, routed or have taken casualties and are not dug in.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I am sure this should really be in the general forum.

I agree. For some reason Slappy though it prudent to bring it up so I replied.

I think you are over-estimating the German interest in Finland by a wide margin.

We were used to getting bad press more than good press so any comment, good or bad, was blown out of proportion. We had reportedly polar bears walking the streets so that might explain our being so toutchy and twitchy.

'Finlandisation' was used (rarely) whenever the left suggested that it maybe a good idea to not deploy nuclear weapons that would go off on German ground, or that maybe we should accept that the re-establishment of the borders of 1937 was not really a realistic goal of foreign policy, or that we should just talk with East Germany and the Soviets. Convenient stick to get out for the right, and beat the left with.

That is my undestanding too. And we must not forget in those days the men in power were veterans of the war for the most part so such a term already had all the necessary mental connotations to form a perfect weapon. I trust Göbbels had made it sure our name was soiled before the end came.

I never understood what was so bad about Finland anyway

We had not been true to the cause ?

We had been tretcherous and betrayed the friendship offered by a peace loving nation. And we had maintained our freedom and could claim to had survived an enemy the German army could not survive. y the same token, of course most of the memberd of the party had joined the party out of external pressure and conformity, not of their own free will.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Swift:

Yes, but I don't want to rub it in

No foul, no harm

I am, of course, only joking. I think that the Finnish effort during the winter war was truly heroic and I can understand that they joined forces with Germany in ’41 for a chance to get even.

That is true. But a very powerful motivation was also the will to survive. We had to pick a side because after the Winter War was over the Soviets maintained pressure and a very hostile attitude.

[Graaf Spee]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

Other Scandinavian nations ? They understood our situation and we understood their situation. They were not scared away, they kept their distance for reasons all parties understood.

<hr></blockquote>

Interesting. I've always wondered what the finnish people thought about Swedish politics durng the war(s). When talking about the war with swedes I usually hear one of two positions. The first is that we were backstabbing cowards who didn't do anything. The second that Finlands supply line went through Sweden and that the Soviet union definately would have conquered all of Finland if it wasn't for that. Your position seems to fall in between. Am I right? Is it safe to discuss the war with finns or should I keep my big mouth shut?

/Kristian

[Tero]

Graaf Spee:

It is well known the Swedes were fully prepared to fight to the last Finn. But that had been the case for centuries so no news there.

Interesting. I've always wondered what the finnish people thought about Swedish politics durng the war(s). When talking about the war with swedes I usually hear one of two positions. The first is that we were backstabbing cowards who didn't do anything.

The Swedes did give more help than most other countries that were not directly involved in the war on this front. And most people realized the Swedes had to take care of Sweden foremost. It was not the Swedes fault we were the ones with the frontier with the USSR.

Furthermore much of the efforts to form the Scandinavian defence alliance were so fiercly objected by Stalin there was no way to make it work and get all of Scandinavia involved in the war against USSR.

The second that Finlands supply line went through Sweden and that the Soviet union definately would have conquered all of Finland if it wasn't for that.

You have misunderstood.

It was not the supply line that saved us. It was the possibility the Swedes could have allowed the Brits and the French to transport troops across Sweden to Finland to fight the Soviets.

Your position seems to fall in between. Am I right?

Pretty much. Much of the period opinions and apprehentions date back to 1809. The Swedes did more than most to help us. But there was a limit and I think Finnish leaders at the time realized that.

Is it safe to discuss the war with finns or should I keep my big mouth shut?

Sure it is safe.