Michael Dorosh Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Originally posted by Munter: The idea of being disloyal against your brothers-in-arms makes me puke. Be my guest, puke your guts out. <hr></blockquote> Not much of a choice, really - being allied with the guys responsible for murdering 10 million people in mass shootings and gas chambers, or being allied with the guys responsible for murdering tens of millions via starvation and executions. Which should Finland be prouder of allying themselves with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Not much of a choice, really - being allied with the guys responsible for murdering 10 million people in mass shootings and gas chambers, or being allied with the guys responsible for murdering tens of millions via starvation and executions. The freedom of choice between the frying pan and fire. Which should Finland be prouder of allying themselves with? Good luck trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Finland was actually allied to either of them during or after the war. Quilty by proxy or age old propagandistic mantras do not quite cut it in either case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Err..., I don't know. The idea of being disloyal against your brothers-in-arms makes me puke. The only good thing with the Finns fighting Germans was that it wasn't decisive and there weren't much casualties worth the name (few hundred in 6 months). A shameful era in the Finnish history if you ask me, necessary or not.<hr></blockquote> Bear in mind Finland's historic relations with Russia and the results of the Winter War. As I understand it, Finland was primarily only involved with the Axis fight against the Soviets in order to regain the territory it had lost during the Winter War. After that, Finland seemed to be pretty much satisfied with their situation. When the tides of war turned, their only realistic options were to be obliterated by the Soviets (or at least lose much of their territory), or make concessions in a peace treaty and live to tell about it. They were never any great friends of Germany and its ideology, afaik. Either way, what's better: saving your country or going down in a blaze of "glory" with the devil himself, aka Nazi Germany? (Yes, I know that the Soviets, Stalin in particular, were no saints, either.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munter Posted January 27, 2002 Share Posted January 27, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: As I understand it, Finland was primarily only involved with the Axis fight against the Soviets in order to regain the territory it had lost during the Winter War. After that, Finland seemed to be pretty much satisfied with their situation. When the tides of war turned, their only realistic options were to be obliterated by the Soviets (or at least lose much of their territory), or make concessions in a peace treaty and live to tell about it. They were never any great friends of Germany and its ideology, afaik. <hr></blockquote> Exactly. The question is: what was the point in jumping into the war if one wasn't fully prepared to do every possible sacrifice to obliterate the threat represented by the Soviet Union? From a sheer military point of view Finland should have taken part in capturing Leningrad and cutting off the railway connections close to Arkangel thus sealing off Murmansk for good. Then at least one of the strategic goals for the first year of the war would have been secured. The following (German) attack through a secondary route could have been based on the good railway tracks leading straight to Moscow ---> one more strategic goal achieved. But no. Mannerheim, having previously been a Russian officer for 40 years, kept back his troops. Germany would have lost anyway after the U.S. of A. entered the war, but the Soviet occupation of the Eastern Europe would never have taken place. I suppose Winston Churchill would have accepted the results when both the Communism and the Nazism were wiped out simultaniously. The real Russia would have risen from the ashes of the Soviet Union 50 years before than in reality. Well, we would still had been on the wrong side but the retaliation from the Western Allies could not have been worse than that later done by the Soviets. I know, I know. There isn't much point in jumping into some hasty conclusions over the past and mostly forgotten opportunities (the general forum would be more suitable for this subject). Anyway, the results of the war, as they are, did wonders for the Finnish narrow gene pool (including mine) when the refugees from Karelia were re-settled. [ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Munter ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted January 27, 2002 Share Posted January 27, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Not much of a choice, really - being allied with the guys responsible for murdering 10 million people in mass shootings and gas chambers... <hr></blockquote> Its funny how people seem to forget that the Nazis had much more blood on their hands then just the happless Jews they rounded up and killed. What about millions of Soviet citizens from Belorus, Ukraine, etc.? Germans butchered entire villages, over such villages 600 in Belarus alone. Of course, Stalin was worse because he did similar things to his own people. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Munter: The question is: what was the point in jumping into the war if one wasn't fully prepared to do every possible sacrifice to obliterate the threat represented by the Soviet Union? <hr></blockquote> Perhaps Mannerheim was smart enough to consider that the USSR had a good chance of coming out victorious in the conflict. If Finland had played a more active pro-Nazi role, the Soviets would not have been as kind with handling them after the German threat was dissipated. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Munter: Germany would have lost anyway after the U.S. of A. entered the war, but the Soviet occupation of the Eastern Europe would never have taken place. <hr></blockquote> Somehow I have doubts the U.S. could have done much with an extra 200+ veteran German divisions freed up and ready to rip. Don't even dare play the "nuke" card, either. Without throwing untold ammounts of resources at fighting the USSR, Nazi Germany would have had a lot more resources for some of their own unique projects and experiments. [ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: The Commissar ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 27, 2002 Share Posted January 27, 2002 Originally posted by Munter: Exactly. The question is: what was the point in jumping into the war if one wasn't fully prepared to do every possible sacrifice to obliterate the threat represented by the Soviet Union? What if you fail in that endeavour and are subjected to the full wrath of the Russians with all their passions ? Yours is the kind of POV I fail to understand. There is no logic in it. It fails to take into consideration all the relevant prevailing factors of the period (including the political ones) and which affected the decision making at the time, starting with the fact the objective of the Winter War the restoration of the borders of the Imperial Russia and the fact that pretty much no-one has succeeded in conquering the territory that makes out Russia since Tsingis Chan. From a sheer military point of view Finland should have taken part in capturing Leningrad and cutting off the railway connections close to Arkangel thus sealing off Murmansk for good. Then at least one of the strategic goals for the first year of the war would have been secured. What were the proclaimed strategic goals set down by the Finnish government ? I do not recall the down fall of the Soviet regime was among them. Yes, the Soviets had violated the standing non-aggression pact but I have never ever seen any statement or political agenda that would have culminated in the down fall of the Soviet regime as a retaliatory measure. The following (German) attack through a secondary route could have been based on the good railway tracks leading straight to Moscow ---> one more strategic goal achieved. Which was the German goal, not the Finnish goal. But no. Mannerheim, having previously been a Russian officer for 40 years, kept back his troops. Our army was a defence force. Most of his officers were trained by and had served in the Imperial German army during WWI. Yet there was no plot or mutiny to depose him and jump into the Nazi band wagon for real. Why ? Germany would have lost anyway after the U.S. of A. entered the war, but the Soviet occupation of the Eastern Europe would never have taken place. I suppose Winston Churchill would have accepted the results when both the Communism and the Nazism were wiped out simultaniously. The real Russia would have risen from the ashes of the Soviet Union 50 years before than in reality. Well, we would still had been on the wrong side but the retaliation from the Western Allies could not have been worse than that later done by the Soviets. Hogwash ! Anyway, the results of the war, as they are, did wonders for the Finnish narrow gene pool (including mine) when the refugees from Karelia were re-settled. The way you spell Turku would suggest your narrow gene pool originated from the western shore of the Gulf of Bothnia. How do you spell Viipuri ? Vyborg ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munter Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: What if you fail in that endeavour and are subjected to the full wrath of the Russians with all their passions ? If there's any doubt of winning, why should one attack in the first place? Why not make the "best" of it in case one decides to invade? At that time , summer of '41, the Finnish politicians KNEW that Germany would win and sent the troops over the border. Just about nobody liked either the German politics or the discipline in Wehrmacht. As a matter of fact, most of the people in the higher officies were either pro-British or pro-Swedish, but you certainly knew this already, didn't you? As it now seems, the Finnish strategy was to get back the areas lost in the Winter War, and then some in the Eastern Karelia. When Germany "inevitably" would win, Finland would secure the booty cheaply without losing their own soldiers. A stowaway nation, of a sort. The help from the Finnish side would yet have been decisive in the siege of Leningrad. Mannerheim didn't care but took his chances. And lost. Big time. It was first afterwards some hang-arounds founded the myth of a "great and long-sighted political realist who was wise enough not to bother the Russians any more than necessary and led Finland to the glorious and wonderful era of everlasting friendship and mutual trust between these two peace-loving nations". A load of c***, he just s****ed it up and he knew it. Finland lost that war and nobody is stupid enough to want a rematch, period. Most of his officers were trained by and had served in the Imperial German army during WWI. Yet there was no plot or mutiny to depose him and jump into the Nazi band wagon for real. Why ? Unbreakable loyalty. That's always been a virtue for an officer. Nobody put a bullet in Hitler either despite of the several chances. For instance, Stauffenberg is still appreciated by the politicians and despised by the officers. He used a time-bomb and not a firearm and tried to get away with it instead of taking full personal responsibility. Oh well, he got it anyway in the end. The way you spell Turku would suggest your narrow gene pool originated from the western shore of the Gulf of Bothnia. How do you spell Viipuri ? Vyborg ? <hr></blockquote> Oh, back in the golden days it was still called "Wiipuri" . The reason for the spelling is that i happen to live on the southern side of the river Aura, that's "Åbo". The northern side is usually regarded as "Turku". As for the gene pool from my fathers side, there was a Swedish grunt from the army of Carl XII who stayed in Finland in the beginning of 18th century after THAT war. My mother's heritage comes mostly from the Jewish immigrants in Karelia during the Russian epoch. So, what does that make me? An Unter-Finn? Let's keep in touch! [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Munter ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Somehow I have doubts the U.S. could have done much with an extra 200+ veteran German divisions freed up and ready to rip. Don't even dare play the "nuke" card, either. Without throwing untold ammounts of resources at fighting the USSR, Nazi Germany would have had a lot more resources for some of their own unique projects and experiments.<hr></blockquote> David M. Glantz in When Titans Clashed notes that "German armed forces' losses to war's end numbered 13,488,000 men (75 percent of the mobilized forces and 46 percent of the 1939 male population of Germany). Of these, 10,758,00 fell or were taken prisoner in the East." p.284 (These figures included the wounded.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Its funny how people seem to forget that the Nazis had much more blood on their hands then just the happless Jews they rounded up and killed. What about millions of Soviet citizens from Belorus, Ukraine, etc.? Germans butchered entire villages, over such villages 600 in Belarus alone.<hr></blockquote> Do some research on the so-called "Wehrmachtsausstellung" ("Vernichtungskrieg: Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1944." War of Annihilation: Crimes of the Wehrmacht 1941-1944), which has drawn so much controversy in both Germany and the US. A lot of people still don't like to hear about the full (purported) extent of German criminality during the Nazi years. As one of the leading scholars of German war crimes, Omer Bartov, notes in conjunction with this exhibit: "That the Wehrmacht was involved in mass crimes in the Soviet Union is by now a well established fact. Some 3.3 million Red Army POWs out of 5.7 captured died at the hands of the Wehrmacht or after being passed on to other Nazi agencies. Between 25-30 million Soviet citizens, the majority of them innocent civilians, died during the German occupation. The Wehrmacht was heavily involved in the destruction of an estimated 70,000 villages, towns, and cities in the USSR. It was directly responsible for the death of about 1,00,000 citizens of Leningrad during its siege of that city. It was the primary provider of forced labor in the USSR (whose compensation is still being debated today). And it was both indirectly and directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. These facts are not denied by any respectable historian today." (And that's not to mention their occupying and anti-partisan "duties" in other parts of the world. Of course, even outside of war crimes and atrocities, the Germans invaded or annexed numerous nations without provocation or justifications, ruining or taking countless people's lives and property.) There's been loads of historical scholarship on both sides of the Atlantic about these issues in recent years, btw, for anyone who wants to research it. Needless to say, it's a contentious issue, but a sadly instructive one. [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Of course, Stalin was worse because he did similar things to his own people. <hr></blockquote> A murder isn't more or less reprehensible because it's carried out on a foreigner or one's "own kind," so to speak. Anyway, Hitler was guilty of crimes against his own people, not just foreigners. Here's one example: "By 1945, between 100,000 and 200,000 peple had been killed as part of the Nazi euthanasia program, most often in gas chambers. The victims included Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, the feeble-minded, people suffering from tuberculosis, and a large group of individuals loosely referred to as "antisocials," which included drug addicts, prostitutes, homeless people, and others." Over 200,000 people with similiar "deficiencies" were sterilized during that time span. Bruce F. Pauley, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini: Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century, p. 139. [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 Originally posted by Munter: If there's any doubt of winning, why should one attack in the first place? Why not make the "best" of it in case one decides to invade? Depends what was deemed to be the "best" under the circumstances: the Soviets were eager for a rematch after the humiliation, the Germans thought they could conquer the world and had ideas about the Soviet military that ran contrary to the Finnish first hand experiences. Why not do a concentrated but half hearted push to get what you want and then claim "due to circumstances beyond our control", "insufficient resources" and "we'll see when you get there" when the Germans start whining about lack of zeal ? At that time , summer of '41, the Finnish politicians KNEW that Germany would win and sent the troops over the border. Yet, when the Germans failed to take Moscow in 1941 they KNEW Germany would lose the war. A mere coincidence the Finnish troops were ordered to stand down and not to cross the river Svir ? I think not. Already the moral justification as fed to the troops was beginning to wear thin. Just about nobody liked either the German politics or the discipline in Wehrmacht. As a matter of fact, most of the people in the higher officies were either pro-British or pro-Swedish, but you certainly knew this already, didn't you? Of course. That is why I do not think it was Mannerheim alone who was dragging his feet. Or was alone responsible for the lack of "moral fiber" in the matter of the siege of Leningrad and half hearted execution of combat operations. Winter War had shown how much we could rely on out-of-town muscle when the feces hits the ventilation. Also, to retain any shread of credibility and good will that resulted from that experience the pre-war axiom of "no threat to Leningrad" had to stand come hell or high water. It would have incredibly stupid to take part in the siege after denying all Soviet allegations and misgivings to the contrary. As it now seems, the Finnish strategy was to get back the areas lost in the Winter War, and then some in the Eastern Karelia. When Germany "inevitably" would win, Finland would secure the booty cheaply without losing their own soldiers. Altruism is not in the core when you examine war as a phenomemnon. Nor is unselfish actions of nations. A stowaway nation, of a sort. Lets not forget the kind of "help" the Germans gave us during Winter War when they blocked the arms shipments. The help from the Finnish side would yet have been decisive in the siege of Leningrad. Most certainly. Mannerheim didn't care but took his chances. And lost. Big time. Only if his ultimate intention was to overthrow the Soviet regime ruling former Imperial Russia. If his ultimate intention was to safeguard the Finnish nation in all eventualities I'd say he played his hand right. It was first afterwards some hang-arounds founded the myth of a "great and long-sighted political realist who was wise enough not to bother the Russians any more than necessary and led Finland to the glorious and wonderful era of everlasting friendship and mutual trust between these two peace-loving nations". He was a military realist, not a political realist. A load of c***, he just s****ed it up and he knew it. Finland lost that war and nobody is stupid enough to want a rematch, period. Yes. But the loss was at a cost to the attacker. Not even the Soviets wanted a rematch, like they had yearned to do after Winter War. Unbreakable loyalty. That's always been a virtue for an officer. Nobody put a bullet in Hitler either despite of the several chances. How many attempts were made on Mannerheims life during the war ? For instance, Stauffenberg is still appreciated by the politicians and despised by the officers. He used a time-bomb and not a firearm and tried to get away with it instead of taking full personal responsibility. Oh well, he got it anyway in the end. Funny you despise him but not Rommel. As for the gene pool from my fathers side, there was a Swedish grunt from the army of Carl XII who stayed in Finland in the beginning of 18th century after THAT war. My mother's heritage comes mostly from the Jewish immigrants in Karelia during the Russian epoch. Mine is a mixture of slow Häme from my fathers side and Uusimaa from my mother side (researched and verified, not a trace of Savo in my blood from my mothers side at least. Only a few traces towards Turku ). So, what does that make me? An Unter-Finn? Just plain Finn. Which by default makes you an über-Finn. Let's keep in touch! Peace and respect, man ! [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The Commissar: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Not much of a choice, really - being allied with the guys responsible for murdering 10 million people in mass shootings and gas chambers... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its funny how people seem to forget that the Nazis had much more blood on their hands then just the happless Jews they rounded up and killed. What about millions of Soviet citizens from Belorus, Ukraine, etc.? Germans butchered entire villages, over such villages 600 in Belarus alone. [ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: The Commissar ]<hr></blockquote> The conventional figure for Jewish persons is 6 million - I said 10. What do you think the other 4 represent? Anyway, this ain't the time or place to debate who was worse - pretty stupid debate to get into, really. The point, apparently lost, was that Finland was between a rock and a hard place - I guess Tero got it, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munter Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The point, apparently lost, was that Finland was between a rock and a hard place - I guess Tero got it, anyway.<hr></blockquote> It started with the debate about the war in Lappland against the Germans, whether it will be included in the game or not. Apparently not. And then, again, I got carried away. Sorry about that. Anyway. My uncle was there as a young conscript. He told us later on that the situation had felt more or less surreal. They were supposed to drive away with the minimum of troops the remnants of the German army which they seldom even saw and at the same time they were ordered to hide away submachine guns, rifles, mortars, grenades and ammunition in case of a coup d'état by the Soviets or by the newly revived domestic Communist Party. No wonder they were a bit distracted as no-one could decide who the actual enemy was. He relocated the weapon-caches in the early 50's but they had already been emptied by someone. Or something. Most probably by the Army. We do still have a nice Mauser K/98 he ehh... smuggled back home after the war. It got a legal status first in the 60's and shoots pretty well. Tero: I have no idea how many attempts were made against Mannerheim's life during the war, but if you do, please share it with us preferably with some backround information of the would-be assassins. The subject sounds interesting and new to me. [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Munter ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The conventional figure for Jewish persons is 6 million - I said 10. What do you think the other 4 represent? <hr></blockquote> Hmm? I thought you mean all the other "unwanted" the Nazis took it upon themselves to purge from Europe. Gypsies, gays, invalids, and other "minorities". If you had wanted to include in your figure the number of massacred Soviet civilians, it would come out to anywhere between 20-30 million. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The point, apparently lost, was that Finland was between a rock and a hard place - I guess Tero got it, anyway. <hr></blockquote> I guess you don't read through entire posts after it stops concerning yourself. To quote myself in responce to Munter from the same thread: " Perhaps Mannerheim was smart enough to consider that the USSR had a good chance of coming out victorious in the conflict. If Finland had played a more active pro-Nazi role, the Soviets would not have been as kind with handling them after the German threat was dissipated." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted January 28, 2002 Share Posted January 28, 2002 Okay, this thread has almost NOTHING to do with regards to CM anymore so I will move it to the General Forum but from past experiences I really doubt that: A) Any new info is going to come out on this topic and Anyones already formed opinoin is going to be swayed one way or the other.. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts