The war.. is imminent

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Do you have any idea how much death and destruction Stalin's armies wrought in occupied areas?

In any case, demanding such ideological perfection from Finnish Jews is monstrously unfair to them.

Especially since little was known about Nazi atrocities until 1944-45. Stalins atrocities were sadly more well known, and practised during the Winter War.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Remember, despite a severely weakened army the Soviets still managed to defeat Finland (they suffered casualties, yes, but...)
To think that, if Nazi Germany had managed to defeat the Soviet Union, that FInland would have been able to stand up to its military is quite foolish. I would expect nothing less from an Evil Evil Finn

Finland was never brought under Soviet rule, defeat or no defeat.

Speculations like yours involve limitless manpower and political will, all towards the conclusion you want to arrive to. That makes the whole exercise pretty much useless.

[Pekka]

I just love this claim, that had Hitler won, Finland would have been next.

YES, very likely. You suggest we should have thus surrendered to Stalin then? Lot of rich people here.. lot of play moves in playbook. NOT.

Instead, how about the invaders. Hey, invade and it's your own fault if doesn't go as planned.

The fact is, Hitler didn't won, thus we didn't have to go against them next. So we did the right thing defending ourselves in the first place.

This claim is not only redicilous, it must be the joke of the year. 'you defended yourself. BAD BAD!'.

What if, what ever, Hitler DID not win. Hey, we're still independent. Looks like straight flush came after all. I wonder why that pisses off people.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Pekka
What if, what ever, Hitler DID not win. Hey, we're still independent. Looks like straight flush came after all. I wonder why that pisses off people.

That bears repeating. Finland made an extremely good (or lucky) play and retained its democratic core values throughout. There's no place for futile ideology there.

[Pekka]

Jaakko, Correct.

What ever people say, it WAS the right choice. The results speaks for themselves. It worked. I can't stress enough the genious move from Ryti. It was like signing a deal with disappearing ink. Yes he did it. Yes he took the responsibility. Yet the country wouldn't be responsible for it, because it was done illegally. But Hitler thought it was the real deal. That equals free help and no alliance. It was be also noted, that Hitler did not enforce any strategic plans in the war on our part. He suggested.. oh yes he suggested a lot of things, but Mannerheim refused to execute those plans, because he remained consistent, that we are defending ourselves against invasion, not attacking with Hitler to Moscow.

Look at it how you want, but the fact is it worked perfectly.

[Pekka]

Atrocities, yes, let's remember what happened. Let's remember what didn't happen. A lot of people escaped Stalin's murderous ways? True.. but a lot of them didn't. It's like you're given a choice, would you like to die by Stalin or Hitler? Is that a rhetoric question? The problem is, some people think they have some kind of moral upgrounds, and they think they can debate this issue. Yes, you should have died is their basic claim. Quite unacceptable.

[Pekka]

There are lots of mysterious debates, as to wha twe should have done. I say we got the best possible result. Anything else, could have gone differently.

"You should have given the lands in the first place and avoid the war". This claim I don't understand. Give some of our best lands, and instead get some POS lands? That's not a fair deal. Give up our second biggest City at the time? How would you like to give up New York and get some rocky lands, but twice the size? Doesn't sound like a good deal.

PLUS, they knew, that if they would give the lands, demands might nto stop. What's next? You know it's like giving 10 bucks to a robberer. Next thing he wants your shoes. Then your hat. Then your house and then your life.

It's actually quite ironic how people even in here seem to be questioning the decision NOT TO TRUST STALIN. It's not like we didn't see the examples what happened to others who did what they suggest. It was pretty trivial at the end.

"You didn't have to keep the troops tied up when Hitler attacked". Hey, why did you attack then. Stop blaming others. The balls, the balls.. Should have stayed home and not cry about it later on.

Besides, our front in continuation war was famous for being inactive. Nothing much happened. We dug in. They even had the time to built movie theaters for C's sake. Not a lot of fighting happened. And we weren't advancing but stopped. No aggression was presented after that. But of course it's always a good debate to claim the smurfs on the west of the fighting were there to tie up troops, with Hitler. Hey... it's not like we wanted to be there, shouldn't have attacked.

[Pekka]

And it wasn't a deep love between us and Hitler. Let's not forget taht Hitler and Stalin made the first deals. You devided the world, and then later on blame little countries? That's weird.

Which one is worse, Stalin or Hitler, that's just semantics, both were bad. Extremely bad.

Hey, at least we fought both. Germans felt some grudge against us too, burning Oulu, a big City at the time. Not a sign of lovers. But at least we fought both, and naturally dominated them battles. Back to school boys!

[Pekka]

Also, it is weird how things played out. It is a fact, that maybe by attacking us, SU saved themselves later on. Yes weird. But this is stated in most places, also in most documentaries including the world at war monster docu, so it is a fact.

Because SU attacked, and the performance was rather poor at first, they did saw a .. need for change. Changing some doctrines etc. which were horribly outdated.

Now losing some smaller battles in here kicked up the program to reform the army. SU started feeling Hitler and that there would be a war with them. They needed to be fast. They did it, they reformed, and they won against Hitler. Had they not reformed, who knows. But they would have done much more poorly.

Another thing, Hitler got a suggestion to attack SU earlier than planned. Because they had learned SU troops were poorly equipped and poor in strategy. This was from watching our battle. Hitler then agreed, that they could take out SU and could start it earlier than planned. Earlier, to fight in winter. Because he figured they'd be in Russia, warming up in houses and eating and all that good stuff after fast victory. But it didn't come now did it. Rooskies fought, but at first Germans advanced as fast as they could run. Then they came to Stalingrad, Whoops winter, nothing worked, artillery et all froze up and no one had any winter equipment etc, and they stopped. They were already evacuating Stalingrad and being pretty grim about the outcome. BUt it held.. like a miracle the cold weather was on the side of SU and absolutely smashed Germans. They held and eventually won.

Had they stick to their plan and gone later on.. might have been a different story. Combined with the reformed army from our war, who knows. So the war with us might have actually saved SU from Hitler at the end, even though it is kind of perversed.

So it should be 'Sorry for invading you. But thank you for fighting us and not surrendering.'

[Pekka]

But the fact of the reality is, what happened, happened. Many of us have their derived patriotic feelings from those days. And like the recent poll suggested, we're not very keen on trusting our neighbours even still, today. However, I wouldn't say it's hostile relationship, and nothing compared to the times then.

Fact is, communism has been a threat to this country. We had a civil war before that war. Communism has always had a special place in here, but not very positive place, even though we are socialists. Well OK, caplitalism integrated into socialist cornerstones.

The fact is, I have no ill will towards our neighbours. But I will debate this issue even so, and I do think that SU was in the wrong, in 90238409 folds wrong. I know they had their reasons to do it, it wasn't out of fun, but anyway it doesn't make it right from our perspective.

So what happened, happened. Maybe it was enivetable. Hitler sure played a part in it too, giving this thought to Stalin's head. He figured he needed some buffer zone. So, it was not like came out of nowhere, the idea.

But the fact remains, it doesn't justify it from our view, and from our view we were justified on every action that took place, and to ask we're sorry for it is kind of.. counter productive. Stalin apologists can burn in hell with their unborn children and suffer for eternity. He was a big paranoid ****er, and I'm sure the SU got it worse from Stalin than anyone else. It might be propaganda, or what ever that some people still defend his actions. Fact is, he killed more people than Hitler. YEah, it's a fact! Hilter would have killed more, sure, but he didn't, because he didn't get the chance.

Stalin was more than happy to devide Europe. After the war he didn't hesitate to take some buffer zone again. Was it right? From Stalin's perspective, maybe, but from the other countries perspective, go ask from them.

WWII has multiple layers in it. It is complicated matter, and should not be oversimplified. Everyone had justifications, no one was wrong and everyone was right in their own minds. But when you start messing with soverign countries to protect your own fronts, don't expect them to like it. Don't expect them to not fight or raise hell for it. It would be hypocrite. No I will not accept someone destroying me because they're defending against someone else. Doesn't seem like a good option to me. To not understand this is weird.

The fact is, I don't really mind that much when some say we were allied with Nazis. It's semantics. you can come out with yes or nay, and you can prolly back it up in both cases. But WWII had multiple layers. Depends where you're looking it from.

Facts remains. Stalin apologists can hang themselves, I could care less.

But I do mind when people who do not know all the facts says we were allied. Because they say it from the WRONG reasons. As if we were fighting WITH Hitler. ****.. Hitler was fighting with us if someone was fighting with anyone. We had oru separate war, and it was not something we started. Thus every claim after that is nothing but semantics. Those are the facts. I ask again, would you rather die by Stalin or Hitler?

[laurentius]

I'm not sure this has been mentioned before but...

When Hitler came to visit our Commander in chief C.G. Mannerheim, he asked how the "jewish problem" was being handled in Finland.
"We have no jewish problem" Mannerheim replied and that was it.

[Pekka]

laurentiues, I think it hasn't been said in here yet, but I think it was if we have the jewish question.. meaning the same thing though.

[Nubclear]

Finland wouldn't have been invaded! And even if they were, Germany wasn't a powerful nation. They would have been easily defeated just like we defeated the Soviets!!

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Finland wouldn't have been invaded! And even if they were, Germany wasn't a powerful nation. They would have been easily defeated just like we defeated the Soviets!!

Quality argument you got there, champ.

[Pekka]

And what some people tend to miss, is the consistency of our decisions. The consistency of not giving up to demands and you have to realize it is because our leaders thought and guessed we would only give to give more later on. Let's not forget, we saw what heppened in other countries. We were lucky to see it first, had we not, maybe we would have give lands.

The consistency of keeping distance to Hitler. His only visit to finland was when he came to Mannerheims birthday.. by surprise. He was not invited. You can see it from Mannerheims face how much he appreciated the visit. They didn't get along. But I think it wasn't the reason, the murdereous ways, because they were quite unknown, more of his.. unprofessional ways. Mannerheim was a career officer, very much into the whole officer thing. So I think that's why he didn't lke Hitler, because what did he ever do to deserve his position, plus he felt sometimes that his plans were quit megalomaniac, you know being the biggest kid in the block suddenly. So no he did not appreciate the visit, nor did they get along on personal level.

The consistency, of keepign the plans separate. There were no need for much strategic plans together. We already had our plans, hitler had his. When Hitler attacked, he many times ordered to siege of few places, to cut the support lines, to choke Stalingrad. It never happened, Mannerhemin consistently said no, because it would be taking an action for Hitler rather than ourselves. He knew we might still be coming back, so doing that would make him and us war criminals. Consistency of refusing these things.. it wasn't just one case. It was _consistent_.

And these are the things tha tmakes the claim that we fought with Hitler quite stupid. Because we know they didn't even like each other, respect, they had just a common enemy. They did not cooperate on the field, and in fact disagreed when it came to what we should do.

And by the way, Hitler did not impose any strategic demands in return for the supplies.

So we weren't even obligated to help. It was, like I said, free money in the pocket.

People cry, at what price.. at what price the free money was in you rpocket. I'd say pretty good price! Free is free. How much did we have ot pay for it? nothing. Except of course, later on fight them in the north.