Also, here is news how a company of Finnish Jägers out maneuvered the famed Telemark Battalion! Unfortunately only in Finnish, I tried to find an English edition of the news, because that would have been much more fun, but alas it was not to be....
Finland got a seperate treaty with the USSR in 1944 when it was obvious the Soviets were about to invade their country. The treaty wasn't what I would call a victory:(from Wikipedia)
Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations and restraints on Finland, as well as territorial concessions. The Paris Peace Treaty (1947) limited the size and the nature of Finland's armed forces. Weapons were to be solely defensive. A deepening of postwar tensions led a year later to the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance (1948) with the Soviet Union. The latter, in particular, was the foundation of Finno-Soviet relations in the postwar era. Under the terms of the treaty, Finland was bound to confer with the Soviets and perhaps to accept their aid if an attack from Germany, or countries allied with Germany, seems likely.
I'm trying to use Google translate on the article in link. So far I know "Finland's hockey team" did well against the Telemark Battalion .
Also, "spanking cartridges were used"
I love Google Translate )
To be serious, the conscripts from Finland did well against the professional mechanized infantry of Telemark Battalion.
I remember back during my national service how much fun it was when Norwegian conscripts did well against professional units such as the Royal Marines and Navy SEALS. I hope Finland will cooperate even closer with NATO in the future
Finland's foreign aid to Norway in the form of beer will certainly be welcome -{
Bob Stewart on BBC News today slagging off Capita for being in charge of the Army's recruitment and rejecting applicants on spurious health grounds - like having a corn.
Of course, reading between the lines it makes for savings in the Armed forces. Less employees to pay. Still, that's the reason for the lack of recruits.
Finland got a seperate treaty with the USSR in 1944 when it was obvious the Soviets were about to invade their country. The treaty wasn't what I would call a victory:(from Wikipedia)...
Of course you would not, being the enemy at the time ) ) )
But, being able to stave off full soviet invasion, puppet communist government, being annexed as per Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact dictated and in the same time inflicting total casualties of between 1,211 - 1,325 mil. during '39-'44 with an army of 700 000 full strength I have no misgivings about lifting a drink to the results!
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Im talking about the Continuation War. Finland attacked the USSR in 1941. After the treaty With the USSR in 1944 you had less territory and less independence than when you started. That's not winning.
Im talking about the Continuation War. Finland attacked the USSR in 1941. After the treaty With the USSR in 1944 you had less territory and less independence than when you started. That's not winning.
Yes you are, and you are free to do so. Also, I am not disputing the geopolitical or economic facts, that Finland lost 20% of territory which had roughly a 30% effect on the gross national product, those are well research and known facts.
What I am talking about is the subjective: we remained independent before, during and after the WW2, we inflicted enough casualties, that the numbers are still not quite clear while maintaining relative restraint and avoiding overt slaughter of the civilian population of the enemy. Yes we lost territory on the Moscow PT, yes we took the risk of trying to get it back (and then some), but dog gone it, it was worth it! Even though we lost the MPT+more in the Paris.
But, 20% is still less than 100% by any calculation and our puppet government stayed out side of our borders and died away by the end of March 1940.
So, to sum it up: Being the only continental European country that participated in the war and not being occupied and after the war staying independent, making it expensive enough to the enemy to make it to agree to negotiate peace after all was said and done, and doing this all against a vastly superior enemy by any metric.... I call it a Victory, because any alternative would definitely have been loosing, and this you can not take away from me or anybody else here in Finland.
Now can we lay this particular thing to rest, I've had this conversation with foreigners ad nauseam, and it always is the same: we will not agree. "How can you say that you won, you sued for peace and had to make long term concessions?" "Because if we had not fought, our way of life would have been annihilated, just look at Karelia. This way we had our cake, although we didn't quite get to eat it too" "That's not a victory!" "Oh yes it is, compared to the alternative, it definitely is."
Cheers! {[] {[] {[]
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Perhaps Finland should have considered the Swedish alternative? There is no doubt Sweden made it out of WWII better than most European nations. The Winter War was a war of agression from the USSR and Finland defended themself incredibly well against the odds. Respect.
But in the Continuation War it was Finland that chose to attack the USSR together with nazi Germany. Finland didn't have to go to war this time, you could have stayed neutral. I'm you didn't get to sure it was tempting to get back the territories lost in the Winter War, but in the end Finland didn't win them back. If Finland hadn't attacked the USSR in 1941 the Soviet would have left Finland alone, they had enough on their hands with the Germans. Among the losers in WWII Finland did get away relatively easy, but Finland still lost that war. We did better than the losers" doesn't make the country a winner.
I don't mean to be impolite or cause offence with the above post, I'm just very interested in history. I certainly don't want any interantional incident between Finland and Norway, mainly because Norway got rid of most of our military after the cold war and Finland didn't ….. :v
Now now, play nice. 1st of all, to say that Soviet Union would have left us alone, when Germany had occupied Norway and Denmark, is conjecture at best. Before operation Barbarossa, SU had already made further territorial demands, as well as demands for the right to use Finnish rail system for troop movements. There was also the attack order for the occupation of Finland given to the Leningard Military District, that was dated 18th september '40 in case of a new war. 25th november '40 it was clarified with order for the situation that Finland was the lone party in that possible war.
After this The Finland affairs were transferred under the jurisdiction of the Main Directorate of Security under Peoples Commissariate of Internal Affairs (GUGB) . Russia started to organize troops for attack on their western border on Finland and Vjatseslav Molotov went to Berlin to secure permission from The Reich for the occupation of Finland.
Hitler said no, since operation Barbarossa was already in the books.
So you see, there was no "Swedish Alternative", with German strangle hold on the Baltic sea routes and growing Soviet hostility we were in the bind. There was no choice. To simplify and say anything else, with time honed 20/20 hind vision.... well it just is not something that I would advocate.
There was a real hard push in Finland after the war, especially in '60s and '70s, from Soviet friendly politicians and scholars to make it look like, that the continuation war was our own fault, and even they couldn't really show convincingly that there had been a real alternative.
2nd Like I said, we were politically on the loosing side, but we were not occupied and we fought our own fight... Like the old joke says, if Soviet Union was the Winner of the war, Finland came in second.
P.S. If there ever would be a chance to get your hands on a book by Finnish historian Ohto Manninen called "Miten Suomi Valloitetaan" or "How To Conquer Finland", I recommend it immensely. Written 2008 it was the first book of it´s kind that utilized previously closed and secret Kremlin archives. These archives included, for example the detailed Russian attack plans and relevant orders from the 1940.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
It's likely the USSR would attack Finland again at some time if the Germans didn't attack the Soviet Union. But Nazi Germany not attacking the Soviet Union was as likely as them not persecuting Jews, i.e. not at all. Lebensraum in the east and anti- Bolshevism was a key part of the Nazi ideology just like anti-Semitism. In short, the Germans would have attacked the USSR anyway and then the USSR wouldn't have the time and resources to attack Finland.
A neutral Finland could have traded with Sweden, America (convoys were risky, but the Swedes did it) and all of Germany and German-occupied Europe. The Swedes kept trading and had a good economy during WWII, there is no reason a neutral Finland couldn't have.
BTW, what do you think of the 2017 version of Unknown Soldier?
BTW, what do you think of the 2017 version of Unknown Soldier?
) ) ) ) I don't believe this, you managed to pick the one book/movie about Finlands wars that I absolutely loath!!!! ) ) ) )
Oh boy!
Let me elaborate on this; It is probably the war book that I have read the most of times. What I hate about both the book, and the movies, is the legendary status as the "Official Story" of not only about Finlands wars, but also about the Finnish Male and leadership it has been afforded here in Finland. The writer who wrote that book, was well known for his socialist sympathies, and his attitudes are very much evident also in the text of the Unknown Soldier. His description of both the fighting men in that war as well as of the front line leadership in the army are both false and border on the slanderous. But he was and is very popular among the cultural elites and press, so his writing is always dug up, when ever there is an article in the news paper or a panel discussion about Finnish leadership. It is a f*****g story about imaginary situations, with imaginary people in a historical time. Most of it is unreal, so why do people treat it like it's some sort of gospel!!!? Anyways, as a war novel, it is entertaining, so I have read it about dozen times since I learned to read, it just is not about real war or real Finnish soldiers.
I have no real opinion on the latest version because I haven't seen it yet.... but by all accounts it should be quite nice as a war flick.
Oh, and about the S-Union not attacking F if G attacked SU, I would not make that assumption. Because, like I already said, it has been proven with Soviet documental evidence, that there were already orders and plans in place at the Leningrad Military District by the end of 1940 to attack Finland, both in case of German attack and in case if Gemany stays out of war.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
I haven't read the Unknown Soldier novel, so I can't say anything about that. I think the movie is pretty much like you assumed. It's an entertaining and competent war movie, but nothing more.
I pretty much assumed the USSR had plans to attack Finland again, but it's interesting to get confirmation from you. But the German attack on the USSR was much more effective than most guessed and the Soviet defence was much less effective than most communists thought it would be. Any attack on Finland was out of the question by then, the goal quickly became saving Leningrad, Moscow and the Baku oil fields.
I have a question: was it the governmet of Finland that contacted the German leadership and suggested joining in when Germany attacked the USSR, or was it Germany that contacted Finland and asked if they wanted to be a part of the invasion?
I have a question: was it the governmet of Finland that contacted the German leadership and suggested joining in when Germany attacked the USSR, or was it Germany that contacted Finland and asked if they wanted to be a part of the invation?
As far as I have understood the latest research on the situation, is that it was pretty much a pressure from Germany. To be fair there were a strong sentiment, that the Moscow Peace Treaty was nothing short of a robbery, so when Germany presented the chance to get it all back (with interest) it didn't take too much of a persuasion. Some folks just wanted the old border back, some people dreamed of liberating Karelia and there were also those that dreamed of "The Great Finland" and total destruction of the bolshevik regime in Russia. But, a deciding factor was probably the fact that Finlands supply routes were completely cut off, either by Germany, or by Russia.
The fact that Swedes had trade routes was pretty much thanks to the steel trade and laundering of nazi gold (Christoph Graf 27.Jan.1997), was in no way indicative that Finland could have done the same, since operation Barbarossa already had a role for Finland to play.
For a quite long time, there was a theory called "Driftwood Theory", that explained Finlands participation in operation Barbarossa as something that we were not really willing to do, but we were caught up in the struggle of the super powers and had no choice in the matter. This is not entirely honest approach, and current view is more like that Finland took an proactive stance to defense because of 1) German pressure 2) The offered opportunity and 3) The apparent threat that existed from the Soviet side. Initially, when Germany launched their attack 22nd June, Finland did proclaim neutrality, but by the time Barbarossa had picked up steam in 25th of June soviets bombed all Finnish industrial centres and major cities, which prompted the Finnish parliament to declare war.
And the rest is history.
As a side note on espionage, we are AJB:ing here after all:
I'm currently reading a book about the spying incidents in Finland after the wars, and it is a sobering read. Finlandization plays a major part in it, for an example, for a long time Finnish Security Police didn't pursue journalists, politicians, industrialists or civil servants who kept close contact with DDR or Soviet intelligence operatives, for the reason that it was deemed as "keeping up the foreign relations". Because of this SUPO was considered as hostile service in the west and they were kept out of Club de Bern for a long time. The real counter espionage work was done by the military GHQ investigative services, which in turn were loathe to share any information with civilian law enforcement because of the certainty of leaks and lack of prosecution.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Thank you. It's very interesting, all of it. The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is this: why would the Germans cut off Finland's trade routes? Finland and Germany had historicaly good relations. Germany helped the white side in your civil war and units from Finland were trained and fought with Germany in the first world war in spite of Finland was still a part of Russia! Germany needed to trade and I see no reason why they would deny doing so with Finland.
I heard something on a cold war podcast the other day that was new to me. In the first part of the cold war the Americans asked Norwegian generals if they had suggestions for bombing targets if the Third world war started. In addition to targets in the USSR the Generals suggested bombing air force bases in Finland! The reason was that the Soviets ould probably spread out their fighters and bombers after the first NATO attack and the Norwegians suspected they would take over air force bases in Finland. NATO should destroy the air force bases in Finland in a pre-emptive strike, said the generals. Norwegian fighter jets and US bombers even trained at doing this bombing raid. Not our finest hour, to quote Bond.
...why would the Germans cut off Finland's trade routes? .... NATO should destroy the air force bases in Finland in a pre-emptive strike, said the generals. Norwegian fighter jets and US bombers even trained at doing this bombing raid. Not our finest hour, to quote Bond.
It was part of the gambit to get Finland to participate in the Operation Barbarossa. Remember, Finland was in pretty poor shape already after the winter war.
Don't worry about it, it only makes strategic sense. It's the same thing with the Finlands possible NATO membership; there is a lot of talk about whether we should join or not, but nobody stops to ask if NATO wants the long border with Russia that it has defend in case of war.
Now that you started to talk about the "Finest Hours"; I saw a report/whitepaper once from the '60s or '70s, that speculated with the possibilities to defend against a Soviet attack. One of the suggested courses of action was to infiltrate Russia and to start a terror campaign against civilian population. Pretty much the same that the Tchetchens did back in the '90s.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
I thought about the possibility that Germany blackmailing Finland into joining Barbarossa. Are there sources supporting this?
Finland has a better military than most NATO members, absolutely including Norway, so in that sense you are welcome. Russia will react very badly if Finland joins NATO, they will see it as an attempt to surround Russia with enemy states. Russia prefer to be surrounded only with obidient client states.
There are no sources directly saying that "Germany black mailed Finland", but the situation was that after winter war, UK had approached Finland with suggestion that Finland would limit its contact and trade with Germany in exchange to exclusivity in UK foreign trade. But after Germany occupied Denmark and attacked Norway, UK cut immediately all shipments and traffic to the Nordics as well as the negotiations with Finland.
After this there really was no possibility of "Scandinavian Security" option. Next went France and that meant that Finland could not get support from the west. SU occupied the Baltic states, and that left us only with Petsamo as the only trade route that was not controlled either by the Germans or The SU.
In April Finland and Germany started political trade negotiations, but before this could be started we had to switch the lead negotiator, because Germans opinion of the then chairman of the Finnish delegation Axel Solitander was that he was too anglophile. He was replaced with Rainer von Fieandt, who convinced the Germans that negotiations with the west were really just a mistake.
When in the summer of 1940 the Russian pressuring of Finland was all the time increased, it was interpreted to mean a clear and present threat against Finlands independence and democratic values. The government with the wide support of the popular opinion sought to close us with Germany to get political support in the situation. The trade deal was struck in the July '40 and Germany became Finlands most important trade partner.
In December 1940 Finland started negotiations with Germany over the forming of the Finnish-Swedish union (which was promptly rejected), but also about wider support from Germany. According to the diary of the chair of the Finnish delegation in Saltzburg, Berlin and Helsinki during the summer '40 general Erik Heinrichs, the working hypothesis was always that Finland would end up in the war as the result of a Soviet assault, also according to the then minister of trade and industry Väinö Tanner, there were no official political or military agreements. There were however discussions about what kind of strategic plans would have to be followed in case of the Soviet attack.
And then 22.6.1941 Germany attacked Soviet Union, and SU started bombing of Finland, which brought us into the war.
P.S. Please please do not ask anymore of these questions, I have had to abbreviate all of this quite a lot, so I'm afraid that I will give the wrong impression somewhere here. To quote Miranda Frost; I think you "got the thrust of it", but to get the perfect sense of all this you would need to find a quality research in English or Norwegian. Like I said earlier, anything from Ohto Manninen will do!
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
On more current military news the Norwegian frigate "Helge Ingstad" has collided with a tanker in a strait near Bergen. The frigate was on its way back to base after NATO's Trident Juncture excercise. It is still in danger of sinking and it has been pushed to the shore and wires are conncted to bolts in the rockface on shore. All of the crew have been evacuated. The frigate costs about 400 million British pounds and it not insured. In addition the oil terminal nearby was in danger, so some oil production had to be stopped. It looks like an expensive and embarrasing day for Norway.
Funny coincidence; I read about this in the news and then watched this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6tRdRcabGw&t=0s) ) ) , isn't that the same ship? There isn't a clear sight of the hull number...
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
I can't be compeltely sure, but I don't think it's the same ship. KNM Helge Ingstad is only ten years old and very advanced. I write 'is' because it seems they will be able to save the ship at enormous cost. Early reports say the frigatte was warned of the danger several times by radio from the tanker and a sea traffic control center, but simply replied "We have control". Someone isn't getting a Christmas bonus this year … :v
On more current military news the Norwegian frigate "Helge Ingstad" has collided with a tanker in a strait near Bergen. The frigate was on its way back to base after NATO's Trident Juncture excercise. It is still in danger of sinking and it has been pushed to the shore and wires are conncted to bolts in the rockface on shore. All of the crew have been evacuated. The frigate costs about 400 million British pounds and it not insured. In addition the oil terminal nearby was in danger, so some oil production had to be stopped. It looks like an expensive and embarrasing day for Norway.
Tonight the KNM Helge Ingstad sank almost completely. The frigate was tethered to land by ten steel cables and bolted into the mountain. Tonight several of the cables snapped and the ship slid into the sea. The colission happened last Thursday when the frigate ignored radio warnings to turn away from the oil tanker. This scandal is getting worse and worse for the navy. Here is a photo of KNM Helge Ingstad this morning:
Living in the northern hemisphere I find it cute how some militaries consider cold weather capabilities as something "special"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv1dvWu5LlQ
Then again, this summer here in Finland, there were newspaper reports about concerned parents demanding a halt to military training of their poor sons who were in the service because of the excruciatingly hot, above +20°C weather ) ) )
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Comments
Here is a glimpse to Finnish attitude towards our Norwegian neighbors: https://taskandpurpose.com/finland-brewery-beer-trident-juncture/
Also, here is news how a company of Finnish Jägers out maneuvered the famed Telemark Battalion! Unfortunately only in Finnish, I tried to find an English edition of the news, because that would have been much more fun, but alas it was not to be....
https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000005887533.html
-Mr Arlington Beech
Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations and restraints on Finland, as well as territorial concessions. The Paris Peace Treaty (1947) limited the size and the nature of Finland's armed forces. Weapons were to be solely defensive. A deepening of postwar tensions led a year later to the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance (1948) with the Soviet Union. The latter, in particular, was the foundation of Finno-Soviet relations in the postwar era. Under the terms of the treaty, Finland was bound to confer with the Soviets and perhaps to accept their aid if an attack from Germany, or countries allied with Germany, seems likely.
Also, "spanking cartridges were used"
I love Google Translate
To be serious, the conscripts from Finland did well against the professional mechanized infantry of Telemark Battalion.
I remember back during my national service how much fun it was when Norwegian conscripts did well against professional units such as the Royal Marines and Navy SEALS. I hope Finland will cooperate even closer with NATO in the future
Finland's foreign aid to Norway in the form of beer will certainly be welcome -{
Of course, reading between the lines it makes for savings in the Armed forces. Less employees to pay. Still, that's the reason for the lack of recruits.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Of course you would not, being the enemy at the time
But, being able to stave off full soviet invasion, puppet communist government, being annexed as per Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact dictated and in the same time inflicting total casualties of between 1,211 - 1,325 mil. during '39-'44 with an army of 700 000 full strength I have no misgivings about lifting a drink to the results!
-Mr Arlington Beech
Yes you are, and you are free to do so. Also, I am not disputing the geopolitical or economic facts, that Finland lost 20% of territory which had roughly a 30% effect on the gross national product, those are well research and known facts.
What I am talking about is the subjective: we remained independent before, during and after the WW2, we inflicted enough casualties, that the numbers are still not quite clear while maintaining relative restraint and avoiding overt slaughter of the civilian population of the enemy. Yes we lost territory on the Moscow PT, yes we took the risk of trying to get it back (and then some), but dog gone it, it was worth it! Even though we lost the MPT+more in the Paris.
But, 20% is still less than 100% by any calculation and our puppet government stayed out side of our borders and died away by the end of March 1940.
So, to sum it up: Being the only continental European country that participated in the war and not being occupied and after the war staying independent, making it expensive enough to the enemy to make it to agree to negotiate peace after all was said and done, and doing this all against a vastly superior enemy by any metric.... I call it a Victory, because any alternative would definitely have been loosing, and this you can not take away from me or anybody else here in Finland.
Now can we lay this particular thing to rest, I've had this conversation with foreigners ad nauseam, and it always is the same: we will not agree. "How can you say that you won, you sued for peace and had to make long term concessions?" "Because if we had not fought, our way of life would have been annihilated, just look at Karelia. This way we had our cake, although we didn't quite get to eat it too" "That's not a victory!" "Oh yes it is, compared to the alternative, it definitely is."
Cheers! {[] {[] {[]
-Mr Arlington Beech
But in the Continuation War it was Finland that chose to attack the USSR together with nazi Germany. Finland didn't have to go to war this time, you could have stayed neutral. I'm you didn't get to sure it was tempting to get back the territories lost in the Winter War, but in the end Finland didn't win them back. If Finland hadn't attacked the USSR in 1941 the Soviet would have left Finland alone, they had enough on their hands with the Germans. Among the losers in WWII Finland did get away relatively easy, but Finland still lost that war. We did better than the losers" doesn't make the country a winner.
After this The Finland affairs were transferred under the jurisdiction of the Main Directorate of Security under Peoples Commissariate of Internal Affairs (GUGB) . Russia started to organize troops for attack on their western border on Finland and Vjatseslav Molotov went to Berlin to secure permission from The Reich for the occupation of Finland.
Hitler said no, since operation Barbarossa was already in the books.
So you see, there was no "Swedish Alternative", with German strangle hold on the Baltic sea routes and growing Soviet hostility we were in the bind. There was no choice. To simplify and say anything else, with time honed 20/20 hind vision.... well it just is not something that I would advocate.
There was a real hard push in Finland after the war, especially in '60s and '70s, from Soviet friendly politicians and scholars to make it look like, that the continuation war was our own fault, and even they couldn't really show convincingly that there had been a real alternative.
2nd Like I said, we were politically on the loosing side, but we were not occupied and we fought our own fight... Like the old joke says, if Soviet Union was the Winner of the war, Finland came in second.
P.S. If there ever would be a chance to get your hands on a book by Finnish historian Ohto Manninen called "Miten Suomi Valloitetaan" or "How To Conquer Finland", I recommend it immensely. Written 2008 it was the first book of it´s kind that utilized previously closed and secret Kremlin archives. These archives included, for example the detailed Russian attack plans and relevant orders from the 1940.
-Mr Arlington Beech
A neutral Finland could have traded with Sweden, America (convoys were risky, but the Swedes did it) and all of Germany and German-occupied Europe. The Swedes kept trading and had a good economy during WWII, there is no reason a neutral Finland couldn't have.
BTW, what do you think of the 2017 version of Unknown Soldier?
Oh boy!
Let me elaborate on this; It is probably the war book that I have read the most of times. What I hate about both the book, and the movies, is the legendary status as the "Official Story" of not only about Finlands wars, but also about the Finnish Male and leadership it has been afforded here in Finland. The writer who wrote that book, was well known for his socialist sympathies, and his attitudes are very much evident also in the text of the Unknown Soldier. His description of both the fighting men in that war as well as of the front line leadership in the army are both false and border on the slanderous. But he was and is very popular among the cultural elites and press, so his writing is always dug up, when ever there is an article in the news paper or a panel discussion about Finnish leadership. It is a f*****g story about imaginary situations, with imaginary people in a historical time. Most of it is unreal, so why do people treat it like it's some sort of gospel!!!? Anyways, as a war novel, it is entertaining, so I have read it about dozen times since I learned to read, it just is not about real war or real Finnish soldiers.
I have no real opinion on the latest version because I haven't seen it yet.... but by all accounts it should be quite nice as a war flick.
Oh, and about the S-Union not attacking F if G attacked SU, I would not make that assumption. Because, like I already said, it has been proven with Soviet documental evidence, that there were already orders and plans in place at the Leningrad Military District by the end of 1940 to attack Finland, both in case of German attack and in case if Gemany stays out of war.
-Mr Arlington Beech
I pretty much assumed the USSR had plans to attack Finland again, but it's interesting to get confirmation from you. But the German attack on the USSR was much more effective than most guessed and the Soviet defence was much less effective than most communists thought it would be. Any attack on Finland was out of the question by then, the goal quickly became saving Leningrad, Moscow and the Baku oil fields.
I have a question: was it the governmet of Finland that contacted the German leadership and suggested joining in when Germany attacked the USSR, or was it Germany that contacted Finland and asked if they wanted to be a part of the invasion?
As far as I have understood the latest research on the situation, is that it was pretty much a pressure from Germany. To be fair there were a strong sentiment, that the Moscow Peace Treaty was nothing short of a robbery, so when Germany presented the chance to get it all back (with interest) it didn't take too much of a persuasion. Some folks just wanted the old border back, some people dreamed of liberating Karelia and there were also those that dreamed of "The Great Finland" and total destruction of the bolshevik regime in Russia. But, a deciding factor was probably the fact that Finlands supply routes were completely cut off, either by Germany, or by Russia.
The fact that Swedes had trade routes was pretty much thanks to the steel trade and laundering of nazi gold (Christoph Graf 27.Jan.1997), was in no way indicative that Finland could have done the same, since operation Barbarossa already had a role for Finland to play.
For a quite long time, there was a theory called "Driftwood Theory", that explained Finlands participation in operation Barbarossa as something that we were not really willing to do, but we were caught up in the struggle of the super powers and had no choice in the matter. This is not entirely honest approach, and current view is more like that Finland took an proactive stance to defense because of 1) German pressure 2) The offered opportunity and 3) The apparent threat that existed from the Soviet side. Initially, when Germany launched their attack 22nd June, Finland did proclaim neutrality, but by the time Barbarossa had picked up steam in 25th of June soviets bombed all Finnish industrial centres and major cities, which prompted the Finnish parliament to declare war.
And the rest is history.
As a side note on espionage, we are AJB:ing here after all:
I'm currently reading a book about the spying incidents in Finland after the wars, and it is a sobering read. Finlandization plays a major part in it, for an example, for a long time Finnish Security Police didn't pursue journalists, politicians, industrialists or civil servants who kept close contact with DDR or Soviet intelligence operatives, for the reason that it was deemed as "keeping up the foreign relations". Because of this SUPO was considered as hostile service in the west and they were kept out of Club de Bern for a long time. The real counter espionage work was done by the military GHQ investigative services, which in turn were loathe to share any information with civilian law enforcement because of the certainty of leaks and lack of prosecution.
-Mr Arlington Beech
I heard something on a cold war podcast the other day that was new to me. In the first part of the cold war the Americans asked Norwegian generals if they had suggestions for bombing targets if the Third world war started. In addition to targets in the USSR the Generals suggested bombing air force bases in Finland! The reason was that the Soviets ould probably spread out their fighters and bombers after the first NATO attack and the Norwegians suspected they would take over air force bases in Finland. NATO should destroy the air force bases in Finland in a pre-emptive strike, said the generals. Norwegian fighter jets and US bombers even trained at doing this bombing raid. Not our finest hour, to quote Bond.
It was part of the gambit to get Finland to participate in the Operation Barbarossa. Remember, Finland was in pretty poor shape already after the winter war.
Don't worry about it, it only makes strategic sense. It's the same thing with the Finlands possible NATO membership; there is a lot of talk about whether we should join or not, but nobody stops to ask if NATO wants the long border with Russia that it has defend in case of war.
Now that you started to talk about the "Finest Hours"; I saw a report/whitepaper once from the '60s or '70s, that speculated with the possibilities to defend against a Soviet attack. One of the suggested courses of action was to infiltrate Russia and to start a terror campaign against civilian population. Pretty much the same that the Tchetchens did back in the '90s.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Finland has a better military than most NATO members, absolutely including Norway, so in that sense you are welcome. Russia will react very badly if Finland joins NATO, they will see it as an attempt to surround Russia with enemy states. Russia prefer to be surrounded only with obidient client states.
After this there really was no possibility of "Scandinavian Security" option. Next went France and that meant that Finland could not get support from the west. SU occupied the Baltic states, and that left us only with Petsamo as the only trade route that was not controlled either by the Germans or The SU.
In April Finland and Germany started political trade negotiations, but before this could be started we had to switch the lead negotiator, because Germans opinion of the then chairman of the Finnish delegation Axel Solitander was that he was too anglophile. He was replaced with Rainer von Fieandt, who convinced the Germans that negotiations with the west were really just a mistake.
When in the summer of 1940 the Russian pressuring of Finland was all the time increased, it was interpreted to mean a clear and present threat against Finlands independence and democratic values. The government with the wide support of the popular opinion sought to close us with Germany to get political support in the situation. The trade deal was struck in the July '40 and Germany became Finlands most important trade partner.
In December 1940 Finland started negotiations with Germany over the forming of the Finnish-Swedish union (which was promptly rejected), but also about wider support from Germany. According to the diary of the chair of the Finnish delegation in Saltzburg, Berlin and Helsinki during the summer '40 general Erik Heinrichs, the working hypothesis was always that Finland would end up in the war as the result of a Soviet assault, also according to the then minister of trade and industry Väinö Tanner, there were no official political or military agreements. There were however discussions about what kind of strategic plans would have to be followed in case of the Soviet attack.
And then 22.6.1941 Germany attacked Soviet Union, and SU started bombing of Finland, which brought us into the war.
P.S. Please please do not ask anymore of these questions, I have had to abbreviate all of this quite a lot, so I'm afraid that I will give the wrong impression somewhere here. To quote Miranda Frost; I think you "got the thrust of it", but to get the perfect sense of all this you would need to find a quality research in English or Norwegian. Like I said earlier, anything from Ohto Manninen will do!
-Mr Arlington Beech
On more current military news the Norwegian frigate "Helge Ingstad" has collided with a tanker in a strait near Bergen. The frigate was on its way back to base after NATO's Trident Juncture excercise. It is still in danger of sinking and it has been pushed to the shore and wires are conncted to bolts in the rockface on shore. All of the crew have been evacuated. The frigate costs about 400 million British pounds and it not insured. In addition the oil terminal nearby was in danger, so some oil production had to be stopped. It looks like an expensive and embarrasing day for Norway.
-Mr Arlington Beech
KNM Helge Ingstad in happier times:
Tonight the KNM Helge Ingstad sank almost completely. The frigate was tethered to land by ten steel cables and bolted into the mountain. Tonight several of the cables snapped and the ship slid into the sea. The colission happened last Thursday when the frigate ignored radio warnings to turn away from the oil tanker. This scandal is getting worse and worse for the navy. Here is a photo of KNM Helge Ingstad this morning:
-Mr Arlington Beech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt33OaWaaAo
-Mr Arlington Beech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv1dvWu5LlQ
Then again, this summer here in Finland, there were newspaper reports about concerned parents demanding a halt to military training of their poor sons who were in the service because of the excruciatingly hot, above +20°C weather
-Mr Arlington Beech