Nov 30th 1939 - A Date which will live in Infamy

[Rasbelin]

Yes, because they needed the support of the German troops and the supplies/weaponry.

[David Floyd]

Would Finland still be Germany's co-belligerent in any form even if the USSR had never attacked Finland? Or, at least, would Finland allow German troops through its territory under any circumstances (perhaps as a result of German ultimatum)?

That's an irrelevant question. You can't justify a war by saying, "At some future point you might be part of a coalition against me, so I'd better stomp on you now."

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
Yes, because they needed the support of the German troops and the supplies/weaponry.

but couldn't Finland just stay neutral after the winter war?
or did the soviets attack first in the continuation war? (I forgot)

[David Floyd]

The Finns attacked first, but they attacked only in the sense that they took back what the Soviets stole. They never actually went after Leningrad.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


but couldn't Finland just stay neutral after the winter war?
or did the soviets attack first in the continuation war? (I forgot)

about 400 000 finns lost their homes in winter war, so I cannot see any possibilities in that situation for being neutral....

[Gangerolf]

I know they only wanted to take back the lost territories. But after the continuation war they lost even more land (the Petsamo area).

That's why I ask if they would still attack if they knew the Germans wouldn't destroy the USSR.

[aaglo]

Gangerolf - I think that we didn't know if the germans were to destroy CCCP. Perhaps we were -hmmm- 'hoping' for it.

Well, propably we would have. But I don't think that the attack would have been reached so deep into the russian territory, If the germans wouldn't have been in war with the russians.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Would Finland still be Germany's co-belligerent in any form even if the USSR had never attacked Finland? Or, at least, would Finland allow German troops through its territory under any circumstances (perhaps as a result of German ultimatum)?

That's an interesting question. Of course, it's a pure hypothetical one, since the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact included Finland, so its fate to go to war was sealed there.

But lets say Finland had played a neutrality card along with Sweden, and somehow managed to get Soviet to believe in this. I don't think Finland would have had too much problems withstanding Hitler if had wanted to. Finland had no resources or heavy industry Germany needed, and the German forces would still have been able to attack through Norway against Murmansk, which was the only strategic goal north of Leningrad.

So I do not see it as at all impossible that Finland would have stayed independent had not Soviet tried to take it in 1939.

[David Floyd]

Of course, I fail to see how Finland's attack on the USSR in 1941 can be considered bad, in light of what the USSR did to Finland in the Winter War.

[Pekka]

I think we saw the situation like there was no peace, just short brake.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Serb
Who?

Me. What will I say now, oh omniscient one...

[Serb]

Hey relax. I’ve edited my post on next morning (when I was much sober). Anyhow I said it about Fez (sure it was really stupid and perhaps I should have been banned for this), but not about you.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That's an irrelevant question. You can't justify a war by saying, "At some future point you might be part of a coalition against me, so I'd better stomp on you now."

“Evil knows no holiday!!! We must attack Iraq and North Korea now, before they will use their weapons of mass destruction against our peaceful cities. Evil must be stopped now, until it’s too late. To the arms!!! Blah…blahh….blah….”

Sounds similar?

Guess who agitate for this?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Serb



“Evil knows no holiday!!! We must attack Iraq and North Korea now, before they will use their weapons of mass destruction against our peaceful cities. Evil must be stopped now, until it’s too late. To the arms!!! Blah…blahh….blah….”

Sounds similar?

Guess who agitate for this?

Hehe....

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's an irrelevant question. You can't justify a war by saying, "At some future point you might be part of a coalition against me, so I'd better stomp on you now."

It was not just "some" future point. It was quite a real and perceptible future. WWII was going on. Europe was being overrun by Germany. It was a rough and cruel time.