Military Review

How Finland “defeated” the USSR

197
How Finland “defeated” the USSR

Finnish President Kyousti Kallio with the coaxial 7,62 mm anti-aircraft machine gun ITKK 31 VKT


Winter war Defeat or victory? In Russia, the "democratic public" believes that in the winter of 1939-1940. Finland won a moral, political and even military victory over the Stalinist Soviet Union, the "evil empire."

"Shameful war"


Since the days of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, the liberal public has spat and vilified Russian and Soviet history. Among the liberals' favorite myths is the Winter War. Liberals, like Western historians and publicists, consider the Soviet-Finnish war an unjustified aggression of the USSR, which turned out to be a complete disgrace for the country, the Red Army and the people.

Winter 1999-2000 Russian liberal public celebrated the 60 anniversary of Finland's victory over the Soviet Union! Nothing has changed even now (although there is no complete dominance in the media, as before). So, on Radio Liberty are given characteristic opinions about the “inglorious” war: “frank adventure”, “aggression of the Stalin regime”, “most shameful war”, one of “the most shameful pages in the history of our state”. The consequence of "the collusion of Stalin with Hitler on the division of spheres of influence between the USSR and fascist Germany", which "accelerated the attack of fascist Germany on our country." There is also the myth of the large-scale Stalinist repressions against the military in the 1937-1938 years, which weakened the Red Army (in fact, the “armed forces” strengthened the army, without them we could have lost the Great Patriotic War without them).

The myths about the error and crime of the Stalinist regime, the deaths of “hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers” (!), The victory of Finland: the Stalinist USSR “were defeated for three months. The Finns won both a military and diplomatic victory. ”


Finnish President Kyousti Kallio with Field Marshal Karl Mannerheim at the Helsinki Railway Station on 19 December 1940. On the left side of Mannerheim is the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Eric Heinrichs


Finnish calculation of anti-aircraft machine gun "Maxim"


Finnish soldiers at the 152-mm Kane gun

Finland won?


What were the outcome of the war? Usually a war is considered to be won, as a result of which the winner solves the tasks set at the beginning (maximum program and minimum program). What do we see from the results of the Soviet-Finnish war?

In March 1940, Finland surrendered, not the USSR! Moscow did not set the goal of conquering Finland. This is easy to understand if you just look at a map of Finland. If the Soviet military-political leadership was going to return the Finns to the fold of the empire, it would be logical to deliver the main blow in Karelia. It was foolish to seize Finland through the Karelian Isthmus, and the Soviet leadership did not suffer from stupidity then (just remember how Stalin will replay such “bison” of world politics like Churchill and Roosevelt during the Great War). On the isthmus, the Finns had three fortification lines of the Mannerheim line. And on hundreds of kilometers of the rest of the border with the USSR, the Finns had nothing serious. In addition, in winter this forest and lake-marshland was passable. Obviously, any reasonable person, not to mention the Soviet General Staff and Headquarters, will plan a deep invasion through unprotected sections of the border. The USSR could dismember Finland with deep blows, depriving it of ties with Sweden, from where there came a stream of volunteers, financial assistance, access to the Gulf of Bothnia. If the goal was to capture Finland, then the Red Army would act in this way, and not storm the Mannerheim line.

Moscow was not going to conquer Finland. The main task was to enlighten the unreasonable Finns. Therefore, the Red Army concentrated the main forces and assets on the Karelian Isthmus (length with lakes about 140 km), 9 corps, including tanknot counting individual tank brigades, artillery, aviation и fleet. And on the section of the Soviet-Finnish border from Lake Ladoga to the Barents Sea (900 km in a straight line), where the Finns did not have fortifications, 9 rifle divisions were put up against the Finnish army, i.e., 100 km of the front per Soviet division. According to Soviet pre-war ideas, the rifle division should have an offensive zone with a breakthrough of defense of 2,5-3 km, and in defense - no more than 20 km. That is, here the Soviet troops could not even build up a dense defense (hence the defeats at the initial stage, “boilers”).

Thus, from the hostilities it is obvious that the Soviet leadership was not going to capture Finland, to make it Soviet. The main goal of the war was to admonish the enemy: depriving the Finns of the Mannerheim line as a bridgehead for an attack on Leningrad. Without these fortifications, Helsinki should have understood that it is better to be friends with Moscow, rather than fight. Unfortunately, the Finns did not understand this the first time. "Great Finland" from the Baltic to the White Sea did not allow the Finnish leadership to live in peace.

As previously noted (What prompted the USSR to start a war with Finland), the Soviet government put forward quite insignificant demands to Finland. In addition, as was shown above, Finland, contrary to the myth of a small "peaceful" European country that fell victim to Stalinist aggression, was a state hostile to the USSR. The Finns attacked Soviet Russia twice during the Time of Troubles (1918-1920, 1921-1922), trying to chop off territories that were larger than the Finnish state from us. The Finnish regime built its policy in the 1930 years as an anti-Soviet, Russophobic state. In Helsinki, they relied on a war with the USSR in the ranks of an alliance with any great power, Japan, Germany, or Western democracies (England and France). Provocations on land, at sea and in the air were commonplace. The Finnish government did not take into account the fundamental changes that occurred in the USSR in the 30-s, Russia was considered a "colossus with feet of clay." The USSR was considered a backward country where the vast majority of the people hate the Bolsheviks. Like, a victorious Finnish army is enough to enter Soviet territory, and the USSR is staggering, the Finns will be greeted as “liberators”.

Moscow completely solved the main tasks in the war. According to the Moscow Treaty, the Soviet Union pushed the border from Leningrad, received a naval base on the Hanko Peninsula. This is an obvious success, and strategic. After the start of World War II, the Finnish army was only able to enter the line of the old state border by September 1941 of the year. It was obvious that if Moscow had not started the war in the winter of 1939, Helsinki would still have taken part in the attack on the USSR on the side of Nazi Germany in 1941. And the Finnish troops, with the support of the Germans, could immediately strike at Leningrad, the Baltic Fleet. The winter war only improved the starting conditions of the USSR.

The territorial issue was resolved in favor of the USSR. If in the autumn negotiations of the 1939 of the year Moscow requested less than 3 thousand square meters. km and even in exchange for twice as much territory, economic benefits, material compensation, as a result of the war Russia acquired about 40 thousand square meters. km, without giving anything in return. Russia returned Vyborg.


The soldiers are inspecting Finnish 150-mm howitzers captured in the Vyborg area. 150-mm howitzers H / 14j (150-mm howitzers of the Krupp Japanese-made system) were previously in service with the 2-th separate heavy artillery division of the Finnish army


Soviet soldiers inspect the observation cap of the captured Finnish bunker


Two soldiers of the Red Army with accordions on the blown up Finnish bunker in the Khotinen area

Loss question


Of course, during the hostilities the Red Army suffered greater losses than the Finnish army. According to name lists, our army has lost 126 875 troops. In the years of "democratic trends", larger figures were also cited: 246 thousand, 290 thousand, 500 thousand people. Losses of Finnish troops, according to official figures, are about 25 thousand killed, 44 thousand wounded. Total losses of about 80 thousand people, that is, 16% of all troops. The Finns mobilized 500 thousand people into the army and the shyutskor (fascist security detachments).

It turned out that every killed Finnish soldier and officer had five killed and frozen Red Army soldiers. Therefore, they say, the Finns defeated the huge Soviet "evil empire." True, then the question arises, why did Helsinki capitulate at such a low loss? It turns out that the Finnish troops could continue to beat the "evil Russian orcs." Help was close. The British and French were already loading the first echelons to help Finland, preparing to come out against the USSR as a united "civilizational" front.

For example, you can look at the losses of the Germans in the Great Patriotic War. From 22 June to 31 December 1941, the Germans on the Soviet front lost 25,96% of the total number of ground forces on the Russian front, after a year of war these losses reached 40,62%. But the Germans continued to attack until July 1943. And the Finns allegedly lost 16% and raised the white flag, although they fought really skillfully, bravely and stubbornly. After all, they had to hold out quite a bit. Convoys with reinforcements were already coming from England (the first echelon arrived in Finland at the end of March), and the Western Air Force was preparing to bomb Baku.

So why did the Finns not last a couple of weeks until they were backed up by selected English and French units? And the spring thaw, which greatly complicated the movement of troops in Finland, has also already begun. The answer is simple. The Finnish army was completely bloodless. The Finnish historian I. Hakala writes that, by March 1940, Mannerheim simply did not have any troops left: "According to experts, the infantry lost about 3 / 4 of their composition ...". And the Finnish Armed Forces mainly consisted of infantry. The fleet and air force are minimal, there are almost no tank troops. Border guards and guard units can be attributed to the infantry. That is, from 500 thousand infantry troops there were about 400 thousand people. So it turns out that the Finns are getting dark with losses. Having lost most of the infantry and Mannerheim’s line, the Finnish elite capitulated, as combat capabilities were exhausted.

Thus, there are no “hundreds of thousands of dead Red Army soldiers”. The losses of the Soviet side are higher than the Finnish ones, but not as much as we were told. But this ratio is not surprising. For example, you can recall the Russo-Japanese War 1904 - 1905 years. During the fighting at the Manchu Theater, where the field armies fought a maneuvering war, the losses are about the same. However, during the assault on the Port Arthur fortress, the loss of the Japanese is much higher than the Russian. Why? The answer is obvious. In Manchuria, both sides fought in the field, attacked and counterattacked, defended. And in Port Arthur, our troops defended the fortress, although unfinished. Naturally, the assaulting Japanese suffered much greater losses than the Russians. A similar situation developed during the Soviet-Finnish war, when our soldiers had to storm the Mannerheim line, and even in winter.

But here you can find your pluses. The Red Army gained invaluable combat experience. Soviet troops quickly showed that with the help of modern aviation, artillery, tanks, and engineering units, one could quickly break into the most powerful defense. And the Soviet command got an occasion to think about the shortcomings in the training of troops, about urgent measures to increase the combat effectiveness of the armed forces. At the same time, the Winter War played a bad thing with Hitler’s leadership. In Berlin, as well as in Helsinki, they underestimated the enemy. They decided that since the Red Army had been so busy with the Finns for so long, the Wehrmacht would be able to conduct a “lightning war” in Russia.

In the West at that time they understood that Moscow had achieved victory, not great, but victory. Thus speaking in Parliament on 19 of March 1940 of the year, the head of the French government, Daladier, said that for France, “the Moscow peace treaty is a tragic and shameful event. This is a great victory for Russia. ”


Soviet officers on the background of the Vyborg castle. The city of Vyborg moved to the USSR following the results of the Soviet-Finnish war



Residents of Leningrad welcome the tankers of the 20th Tank Brigade on the T-28 tanks returning from the Karelian Isthmus. April 1940
Author:
Photos used:
waralbum.ru
Articles from this series:
Winter War

The myth of the aggression of the "criminal Stalinist regime" against the "peaceful" Finland
What prompted the USSR to start a war with Finland
How the West was preparing a "crusade" against the USSR
Why were the Finns confident in victory over the USSR
197 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757
    rocket757 13 December 2019 05: 11 New
    +4
    What are we discussing again?
    . In the West, at that time, they understood that Moscow had achieved victory, not great, but victory

    Everything is clear, the points on E are set!
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 13 December 2019 06: 22 New
      +16
      rocket757 (Victor)
      What are we discussing again?
      Victor hi ! Well what’s the matter, now the bakers will run into the subject and the usual fight of white and red will begin. We have almost any topic in history, it is a continuation of the civil war.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 13 December 2019 08: 23 New
        +3
        Alexander soldier
        As we were taught before, that there is white, there is black and you should not mix them ... life has taught us that there is a borderline, as it were gray !!! But borderline, as it were, equilibrium, such a complex, peculiar thing, and it must be treated carefully, very carefully !!!
        On fundamental issues, trying to stay in the gray zone means losing YOURSELF ... in my opinion, this is unacceptable.
        1. Alexander Suvorov
          Alexander Suvorov 13 December 2019 08: 46 New
          +3
          rocket757 (Victor)
          On fundamental issues, trying to stay in the gray zone means losing YOURSELF ... in my opinion, this is unacceptable.
          I agree, you can’t be a little pregnant, and here, the Khrustobunik is always an anti-Soviet, and there you can scrape and find a Russophobe, though they always deny it, although it is always so!
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 13 December 2019 08: 52 New
            +3
            Quote: Alexander Suvorov
            and scratch there and you will find

            There, there’s a lot more where you’ll find / scrape off someone who is not at all what they seem to want, under which they are disguised!
            This is our REALITY!
            1. Alexander Suvorov
              Alexander Suvorov 13 December 2019 08: 57 New
              +3
              ocket757 (Victor)
              This is our REALITY!
              Down already climbed. Generally guys masochists have to say. They breed like bots, grab minuses in batches, but still with tenacity, they continue to shove openly Russophobic, and sometimes not Nazi slogans, in the commentary.
              I just can’t understand in any way, do they really do it for money or for free out of love for art?
              For the money you can still understand (but not forgive and accept), but if it's free, then how can one hate all Russian, including the language they think and write?
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 13 December 2019 10: 34 New
                +4
                Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                I just can’t understand in any way, do they really do it for money or for free out of love for art?

                costs, garbage accumulated in troubled times ... and now, it’s far from certain and clear, to those who do not have their own, clear understanding of the events!
                Not knowing and not self-educating is stupid! They will try to fill the void with all sorts, different .... it will turn out porridge. All that remains is to put the pan on top, so as not to splash!
        2. Proxima
          Proxima 13 December 2019 12: 16 New
          +4
          For some reason, it is customary to forget about the main merit (in my opinion) of the Winter War. This merit stems from its unspoken name. We recall how many frostbite Red Army soldiers were (frostbite sometimes exceeded the "classic" wounds). Moscow made the right conclusions from this war, because the ability to conduct military operations in the winter is a whole logistics cluster! So, my opinion is if there weren’t a Winter War, we would definitely lose the battle for Moscow!
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 13 December 2019 12: 37 New
            +2
            Quote: Proxima
            So, my opinion, if there hadn’t been a Winter War, we would have definitely lost the battle for Moscow!

            Any preparation is a plus, and proper preparation is a plus to the nth degree!
            They did not lose, did not surrender Moscow, because our fathers and grandfathers defended their homeland without sparing their belly!
          2. ydjin
            ydjin 13 December 2019 15: 37 New
            +5
            I recall with kind words our Soviet quilted jackets, the modern membrane is good and at the same time delicate. It works a bit from the store, but a couple of times it sweats and smears, all special washing with special means and there is no guarantee. We went in quilted jackets in childhood and it was comfortable clothing.
        3. karabass
          karabass 14 December 2019 21: 55 New
          +1
          Too much water you poured comrades won, lost, won a little bit, etc.
          Let me state the essence (from my point of view) At the initial stage, they were defeated due to insufficient preparation, at the end they won, correcting the mistakes made
      2. BARKHAN
        BARKHAN 13 December 2019 12: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        We have almost any topic in history, it is a continuation of the civil war.

        The continuation of the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed as soon as possible. Again, the bourgeoisie squeezed the people's spring ... so that there is nothing to whine afterwards.
    2. Civil
      Civil 13 December 2019 07: 28 New
      -11
      But here you can find your pluses. The Red Army gained invaluable combat experience. Soviet troops quickly showed that with the help of modern aviation, artillery, tanks, and engineering units, one could quickly break into the most powerful defense.

      All tasks were completed then I agree. But what is the outcome of that war for 2019? Remained the conquests for which the Red Army laid their heads?
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 13 December 2019 08: 26 New
        +10
        Quote: Civil
        Remained the conquests for which the Red Army laid their heads?

        Question - Did the country remain, for which then our ancestors fought ???
        The people who have remained, are now, must remember and think very well WHO WE ARE? WHOSE ARE WE SUBJECT TO?
        White - Black, gray is not provided here.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 13 December 2019 08: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: rocket757
          the country remained, for which then our ancestors fought ???

          No. It is strange that you are not in the know.

          I’ll tell you more, in a fair part of that country the fascists and / or invaders are again atrocious. Watch TV, they won’t lie there.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 13 December 2019 08: 49 New
            +7
            Quote: Octopus
            Watch TV, they won’t lie there.

            What for? Watch how the new bar gets hung out?
            I’ve understood everything for a long time, everything has been decided .... there’s just no barricade, which is time, time
    3. Olgovich
      Olgovich 13 December 2019 10: 11 New
      -16
      Quote: rocket757
      Everything is clear, the points on E are set!

      Not at all, for the topic is not disclosed by the author at all: no war with Finland, in fact ... IT WASN’T !! yes

      This is clearly and unequivocally indicated in Statements of the Government of the USSR December 4, 1939:

      The response of the Soviet government to the telegram of Mr. Avenol, Secretary General of the League of Nations

      On behalf of the Government of the Soviet Union, I have the honor to notify you ..

      Soviet Union not at war with Finland и Doesn’t threaten war with the Finnish people. ..

      The Soviet Union isI'm in a peaceful relationship with the Democratic Republic of Finland, with whose government on December 2 of this year he concluded an agreement on mutual assistance and friendship.

      So there!

      The USSR only provided
      The Democratic Republic of Finland the promotion by our military forces in order to jointly eliminate as soon as possible the most dangerous hotbed of war created in Finland by its former rulers.


      As a result of such "assistance" (not war!), The territory of Finland decreased, although by a few thousand kilometers, but these are already details.

      The border has been pushed back, which, in principle, is correct.

      But the victory, in many respects, was pyrrhic: huge losses of people, loss of prestige and image, and, most importantly, Hitler, who carefully watched the war, realized that the USSR was inept and weak You can attack and must.. Than to show SUCH, it would be better not to fight ...

      And the Finnish Armed Forces mainly consisted of infantry. Fleet and air force are minimal tank there are almost no troops. Border guards and guard units can be attributed to the infantry. That is, out of 500 thousand infantry troops, there were about 400 thousand people.

      The entire army of Finland amounted to 300 thousand people after mobilization, which they themselves write about. . Which 500 thousand?

      As for the tank troops, then, yes, practically, they were not: they were formed after the defeat of ....captured Soviet tanks. Such are the amazing consequences of the victory of the USSR ....
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 13 December 2019 10: 42 New
        +3
        Mistakes are made - mistakes are corrected.
        Doing nothing is stupid with bad prospects.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 13 December 2019 11: 01 New
          -14
          Quote: rocket757
          Mistakes are made - mistakes are corrected.
          Doing nothing is stupid with bad prospects.

          I adhere to a different approach: "Seven times measure cut once"

          And they started to cut, generally without trying:

          Stalin at a meeting with the highest command of the Red Army on April 17, 1940:
          “Could you wait three or four months, prepare and then hit?”
          No. The party and the government did the right thing. There, in the West, the three largest powers clutched each other's throats. When is the question of Leningrad to be resolved, if not under such conditions, when their hands are busy, and we find a favorable situation? ”


          By the way, the so-called The FDR were, without any war, formally transferred to the HUGE territories of Soviet Karelia.

          If she survived, today Russia would be without them ....
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 13 December 2019 11: 41 New
            0
            Discuss the past, an unpromising lesson.
            Old mistakes are repeated, time after time, new ones are made with no less frequency ... and then fix everything !!! As it usually has become.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 13 December 2019 11: 47 New
              -7
              Quote: rocket757
              Discuss the past, an unpromising lesson.

              The section is History.
              Quote: rocket757
              Old mistakes repeat time after time, new ones are made with no less frequency ... and then fix everything!!! As it usually has become.

              This is yes ...
              But. I think if the stories did not know, they would be an order of magnitude more ....
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 13 December 2019 11: 53 New
                +4
                Quote: Olgovich
                But. I think if the stories did not know, they would be an order of magnitude more ....

                It's right! At least something the rulers remember themselves or advisers inform them. Although so.
                A HISTORY I love and respect !!!
                It’s just that our local discussions do not go upstairs, and there’s no point in arguing on the same issues. Anyone who can has already decided, and beginners are not inclined to listen, listen to ANYTHING, if this does not come from their leaders, idols.
                We can \ do only look from the side and grumble ... we can, of course, spit out, but this is not comme il faut at all!
      2. gorenina91
        gorenina91 13 December 2019 17: 24 New
        +1
        -Personally, I have spoken out quite a bit on this subject ...
        -We have somehow treated you kindly ...
        -And so ... immediately harshly subjected ... to punishment ... -and demoted (there was a lieutenant, and became a young lieutenant), and how many minuses I got ... ... just a horror ...
        -Yes ... -A plus for you from me ...
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 14 December 2019 10: 20 New
          -1
          Quote: gorenina91
          Personally, I have already spoken quite extensively on this topic ...
          -We have somehow treated you kindly ...
          -And so ... immediately harshly subjected ... to punishment ... -and demoted (there was a lieutenant, and became a young lieutenant), and how many minuses I got ... ... just a horror ...

          Dear Irina, a large number of minuses suggests that the TRUTH was very painful and impossible to refute. So this is a confession hi

          A "title" depends on the number of minuses, pluses: I was a "general" not so long ago lol

          But it doesn’t bother me: I have real officer epaulets.
          1. gorenina91
            gorenina91 14 December 2019 10: 56 New
            0
            - Alas, no arguments are heard against the biased opinion of the crowd, and the truth and objectivity there are completely superfluous ...
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 14 December 2019 11: 18 New
              -1
              Quote: gorenina91
              - Alas, no arguments are heard against the biased opinion of the crowd, and the truth and objectivity there are completely superfluous ...

              Yes, and God be with them, do not pay attention, because your arguments could not be refuted? No.


              This, I think, is the main thing. Moreover, there are those who support your point of view.

              And from me to you "+" hi
              1. gorenina91
                gorenina91 14 December 2019 11: 37 New
                0
                -Two mine (+) in your address ...
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 14 December 2019 19: 12 New
            +4
            Quote: Olgovich
            Dear Irina, a large number of minuses suggests that the TRUTH was very painful and impossible to refute. So this is a confession

            I completely agree with this assessment - I already understood the essence of the addictions of some local "authorities", which is why I am not surprised when someone's rating is reduced.
            Quote: Olgovich
            But it doesn’t bother me: I have real officer epaulets.

            I agree with this approach - it is really unlikely that a real officer can be bothered by a situation when some amateur who specializes in writing forum articles tries to teach a military professional how he should understand official documents and how to execute them.
            The fact that you have real epaulettes does not surprise me, but arouses respect. Your not always adequate assessment of the past is surprising, and the question involuntarily arises, what is your seniority and level of your posts, because to some extent senior officers of the Soviet period more balancedly evaluate past issues than those who served during the breakdown of the armed forces.
      3. Nehist
        Nehist 13 December 2019 19: 21 New
        -1
        Rarely when I agree with you Olgovich. (and even now I don’t agree on everything) but basically you’re right
      4. ccsr
        ccsr 13 December 2019 20: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: Olgovich
        As for the tank troops, then, yes, practically, they were not there: they were formed after the defeat of .... captured Soviet tanks.

        Not everyone thinks so, because before the war there were tanks in the Finnish army:
        By November 30, 1939, the Finnish tank forces numbered 34 obsolete Renaults, 33 Vickers, one Landsverk armored car, a wedge, a light tank, and two armored trains.
        Organizationally, the tanks were part of a separate tank battalion consisting of five companies - the 1st and 2nd at the Renault, the 3rd and 4th at the Vickers, the 5th training (with a wedge and light tank) - and repair shops. In total, there were about 700 people in the battalion, the commander was Major S. Bjorkman.

        https://military.wikireading.ru/11574
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 14 December 2019 10: 23 New
          -1
          Quote: ccsr
          By November 30, 1939, the Finnish tank forces numbered 34 obsolete Renaults, 33 Vickers, one Landsverk armored car, a wedge, a light tank, and two armored trains.

          1. Is the word "practically" familiar?
          2. Obsolete is times of PMVthat were only until 1939
          3. Another 30 came right before the war, in view of the threat of the USSR
          4. The USSR had almost a hundred times more tanks
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 14 December 2019 19: 05 New
            +2
            Quote: Olgovich
            . The USSR had almost a hundred times more tanks

            You forgot that only one district participated in the war, so the "total" number did not play a role here, especially taking into account the theater of war and the quality of our equipment.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 15 December 2019 10: 23 New
              -1
              Quote: ccsr
              You forgot that only one district participated in the war, so the "total" number did not play a role here, especially taking into account the theater of war and the quality of our equipment.

              What does it have to do with ... the total number ?!
              More than TWO thousand tanks were concentrated precisely against Finland.
      5. Dmitry Bolotsky
        Dmitry Bolotsky 15 December 2019 03: 10 New
        +2
        Andrey, good night to you! Sorry, you fell off without waking up ... Judging by your statement, you were picked up, but you forgot to wake you up. I’m not denying anyone on this forum, in the end, everyone has the right to what they have ... But, excuse me, you are either deep ... or very nowhere ...
        Consider both options.
        The first. You are very deep ...
        If you have gone so deep, I dare say that between 1939 and 1917, everything was right, only twenty-something years old, like today, after the “collapse” of the USSR. Therefore, there is no point in discussing some national consciousness of something who wants to talk about this consciousness. Especially today. Especially with regards to Finland. For, unlike you, the Finns learned history lessons "perfectly", and Russian is one of the state languages. About 20% of the population of this country speak and communicate this language, according to Finnish statistics.
        Now about to nowhere.
        The “war with Finland” in absolute terms lasted 2 months, or about 60 days in absolute terms from the point of view of military art. After breaking the Manerheim line, all of Finland lay in front of the former pope with legs spread wide. Whether you like it or not is a fact. Another question is why this all happened. Talking or reasoning, victory or defeat, aggressor or defender, true or false, is meaningless. But, after more than 60 days of fighting, Finland requested peace. Now about the losses on our part. Because on the other hand, there is still no adequate assessment of losses. At least 70% of the losses are due to frostbite from the USSR. I think that someday the Finns will discover the truth and report that on their part the losses due to climatic conditions were no less. Winter on that section of the battle was the queen, bringing the degree to minus 30-40 degrees below Celsius, and at the same time abundantly sprinkling snow all over. Nevertheless, the USSR fulfilled all strategic tasks. What you are trying to reason about is incomprehensible. If we talk about the war - it is won. If we talk about losses - they are taken into account (in all subsequent ones, everything was freezing except ours). If we talk about the results, everything is fine in Vyborg to this day. And about the story - to hell with you and not Peter!
        PySy. Noticed that I do not care about the pluses or something. The time has passed. The time has passed. But, if you are not a troll, begin to study history not on a wiki, but at least in fact, at least temporarily. The war of the USSR and Finland lasted no more than 60 days. Dot.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 15 December 2019 10: 35 New
          -1
          Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
          Andrey, good night to you!

          Good to you in the morning!
          Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
          Judging by your statement, they raised you, but forgot to wake you up.

          I slept beautifully, unlike you.

          Therefore, I can’t understand the confusion that you wrote late at night.

          WHAT did you “refute”? What do you disagree with?
          request

          By the way, the goal of the war isFDR- appeared in deep e, yes. And instead of a possible neutral Finland (like Sweden), the Second World War received a vicious enemy that blocked Leningrad.

          It's just FACTS
          1. Dmitry Bolotsky
            Dmitry Bolotsky 16 December 2019 09: 17 New
            +2
            By the way, the goal of the war — the FDR — was in deep e, yes. And instead of a possible neutral Finland (like Sweden), in the Second World War they received a vicious enemy that blocked Leningrad .///
            You write that these are FACTS.
            The purpose of any war is to seize territory. Therefore, the goal in this case has been achieved. This is a fact.
            Opportunity will never be a fact. Neither Finland, nor Sweden, nor Norway have ever been and will not be neutral towards Russia. And this is also a fact. As well as the fact that all of the above countries were fascist in essence, but not in status (the so-called neutrality).
            FDR - pure Trotskyism, wet fantasies not worthy of attention. If the goal was to conquer Finland, then, after breaking the Mannerheim line, nothing prevented this goal. And this is also a fact.
            Finland was persuaded for a long time. When the persuasion did not help, all territorial issues were resolved by military means. Finland requested peace. And this is also a fact.
            The tactical miscalculations of December were taken into account, and in February for three weeks the strategic objective was fulfilled - to move the border from Leningrad. By the way, the human losses of the Finns in February were inversely proportional to ours. This means that the cruel lesson of December 1939 was learned and conclusions were drawn. Autumn and winter of 1941 proved it quite well.
            Yours faithfully, hi hi
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 16 December 2019 10: 06 New
              -2
              Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
              The purpose of any war is to seize territory. Therefore, the goal in this case has been achieved. This is a fact.

              The purpose of a specific TOY war is the creation and existence of the FDR: we read Treaty between the USSR and the FDR from, in my opinion, December 2, 1939: there ALL territorial issues are resolved
              Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
              Opportunity will never be a fact. Neither Finland, nor Sweden, nor Norway have ever been and will not be neutral towards Russia. And this is also a fact.

              Sweden was NEUTRAL, although it has claims, much more to Russia than the Finns, is a fact.
              Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
              DR - pure Trotskyism, wet fantasies not worthy of attention. If the goal was to conquer Finland, then, after breaking the Mannerheim line, nothing prevented this goal. And this is also a fact.

              No, the fact is that the offensive is stopped. For the capture of all of Finland is enmity with Germany and with everyone else
              Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
              Finland was persuaded for a long time. When the persuasion did not help, all territorial issues were resolved by military means.

              Let me persuade you to give the boots?
              Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
              The tactical miscalculations of December were taken into account, and in February for three weeks the strategic objective was fulfilled - to move the border from Leningrad. By the way, the human losses of the Finns in February were inversely proportional to ours. This means that the cruel lesson of December 1939 was learned and conclusions were drawn. Autumn and winter of 1941 proved it quite well.

              Summer 41 proved the exact opposite hi
        2. Octopus
          Octopus 15 December 2019 10: 38 New
          +3
          Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
          Because on the other hand, there is still no adequate assessment of losses.

          On the other hand, even the victims of some Vyborg massacre are known by name. And here Finns hide 80 years
          Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
          their side losses due to climatic conditions were not less

          I’ll lose about every third adult man if the losses in absolute terms were the same.
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 16 December 2019 00: 11 New
          +2
          “I think that someday the Finns will discover the truth and report that on their part the losses due to climatic conditions were no less” ////
          -----
          They did not have frostbite. Their army was weakly armed, but excellent
          outfitted. Felt boots, underpants, woolen socks, leggings, gloves, earflaps,
          This is described in the memoirs of a Soviet nurse who treated her own,
          and Finnish wounded coming to the hospital. The contrast in the clothes was striking.
          1. Dmitry Bolotsky
            Dmitry Bolotsky 16 December 2019 09: 48 New
            +2
            Bravo, Alexey!
            You conclude from the nurse's recollections. Not expected. I am always happy to read your comments. But in this case, you are making the wrong conclusion.
            1. Those who were in the hospital were well dressed. Of course, because those who were poorly dressed didn’t get to the hospital. They froze.
            2. There were no wounded Red Army soldiers in Finnish hospitals. Our wounded Finns finished off on the spot. This is a black page of Finnish history, and they remember it.
            And they had enough frostbitten. So-called volunteers from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Estonia and others fought on the Finnish side. About 26 thousand volunteers arrived from 11,5 countries, most of whom had no training and either went to the front in the last weeks of the conflict or did not have time to fight at all : among them were 8,7 thousand Swedes (of which the Swedish Volunteer Corps was created), 1010 Danes, about 1 thousand Estonians, 725 Norwegians, 372 Karelian Finns, 366 Hungarians, 346 Finns from various communities around the world, more than 20 Latvians and 190 more people of other nationalities. According to Finnish sources, 12 thousand foreigners participated in the war. This is official data. Unofficial several times more. So this contingent was not ready for the winter campaign.
            Based on the foregoing, I can conclude. There are no official statistics on those who died in the Finnish War of 1939-1940 due to depressingly high losses. This figure can shock the average person. I just don’t see other reasons to hide losses.
            Yours faithfully, hi
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 16 December 2019 11: 21 New
              +1
              Why did you decide that volunteers from the northern peoples, who knew very well what frost was, came to the war in winter without a reserve of warm hope that they brought with them? smile
              You have made an unjustified ASSUMPTION on frostbitten Finnish soldiers and defend it in long posts. To health drinks
      6. naidas
        naidas 15 December 2019 22: 58 New
        0
        Quote: Olgovich
        But victory, in many ways, is pyrrhic: huge losses of people, loss of prestige and image

        Olgovich, are you for removing such a Finnish commander from the red army or not, explain?
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 16 December 2019 07: 54 New
          -2
          Quote: naidas
          Olgovich, are you for removing such a Finnish commander from the red army or not, explain?

          behind.
  2. Plantagenet
    Plantagenet 13 December 2019 05: 50 New
    -2
    "A major flaw in the operational tactical
    headquarters training was a complete lack of skills
    fighting in the environment, as a result of which
    and even Red Army compounds in some cases turned out to be
    incapable of defending a busy area and leaving
    surroundings. However, the environment itself was achieved
    Finns often because of neglect of our commanders
    to defense and protection of the flanks. The same from
    which was warned back in the early 30s by a prominent
    Russian and Soviet military theorist and historian
    A.A. Svechin, repeatedly warned about
    the dangers of the theory of class wars and the ensuing
    her concepts of reckless advance in depth
    enemy territory. Svechin then planted (not
    without the help of M.N. Tukhachevsky), but the theory was banned.
    Svechin was released in 1934, but the theory continued
    considered harmful. But when Tukhachevsky was shot,
    Svechin was imprisoned, and the theory of war was “little blood
    a big blow on the territory of the enemy "remained."

    P. Apothecary "Soviet-Finnish War"
    1. BAI
      BAI 13 December 2019 09: 26 New
      +3
      Assessing the perestroika that took place in the Soviet Army after the “winter war”, the Wehrmacht General Staff on January 15, 1941 noted that the Armed Forces of the USSR, especially after the experience gained in the Finnish war, undergo changes. From the Bolshevik addiction to carrying out gigantic maneuvers and exercises, there has been a return to the painstaking work of individually training the officer and soldier. However, under the conditions of Russia, the positive role of new methods can affect only a few years, if not decades.


      The results and lessons of the Soviet-Finnish war
      Colonel P. P. CHEVELA,
      Candidate of Military Sciences
  3. tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 December 2019 05: 56 New
    +1
    Moscow was not going to conquer Finland. The main task was to enlighten the unreasonable Finns ... on the stretch of the Soviet-Finnish border from Lake Ladoga to the Barents Sea (900 km in a straight line), where the Finns had no fortifications, 9 rifle divisions were put up against the Finnish army, i.e., one Soviet the division accounted for 100 km of the front. According to Soviet pre-war ideas, the rifle division should have an offensive zone with a breakthrough of defense of 2,5-3 km, and in defense - no more than 20 km. That is, here the Soviet troops even could not build a solid defense (hence the defeat at the initial stage, the "boilers")
    brilliant! Is "boilers" a minimum or maximum program? What did you want to refute with this paragraph? or confirm? the wisdom of commanders and guides?
    It turned out that every killed Finnish soldier and officer had five killed and frozen Red Army soldiers. Therefore, they say, the Finns defeated the huge Soviet "evil empire." True, then the question arises, why did Helsinki capitulate at such a low loss?
    the population is one hundred times smaller. A healthy man, having lost 5 teeth, knocked out one tooth to the baby (out of two).

    USSR won. Finland lost. But they can be proud of such a defeat.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 06: 02 New
      +5
      Quote: Tlauicol
      USSR won. Finland lost. But they can be proud of such a defeat.

      laughing Here is the opinion of the Finn:
      Finland's winter war is over; it was the best of all the hitherto wars, because both sides won in it. The victory of the Finns was smaller, because they had to give up something from their territory and accordingly move beyond the new border that arose in this way.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 13 December 2019 06: 33 New
        +6
        I am not Finnish, because I believe that they lost the war. This is clear and certain.
        As for the article, it is simply "brilliant" from the first to the last word
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 06: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          I am not Finnish, because I believe that they lost the war. This is clear and certain.

          Yeah. Only for some time now I'm used to looking at all points of view. This I brought from Lynn Väine “The Unknown Soldier”.
        2. knn54
          knn54 13 December 2019 11: 24 New
          -3
          The merit is small that the Finns defeated. The main thing is that their teachers defeated.
          (albeit not verbatim). Isn't this a MORAL victory?
          Yes, and what morality can be in the DUPLIC Finns.
      2. Octopus
        Octopus 13 December 2019 08: 24 New
        -2
        Quote: mordvin xnumx
        Finnish victory was smaller

        Flirt.
        The Finns are the only people of the Soviet "zone of influence" under the Covenant, who saved (almost all) their homeland from the peace-loving USSR.
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 08: 31 New
          +4
          Quote: Octopus
          Flirt.
          The Finns are the only people of the Soviet "zone of influence" under the Covenant, who saved (almost all) their homeland from the peace-loving USSR.

          They would be crushed in the Second World War. And they’d do it right. This special economic zone did not make nichrome as part of the Republic of Ingushetia.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 13 December 2019 08: 46 New
            -5
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            They would be crushed in WWII

            Forced to remind. Their not crushed in the Second World War.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 08: 50 New
              +3
              Quote: Octopus
              They were not crushed in the Second World War.

              Would want, crushed. Policy.
              Paasikivi. The border that your military command has in mind is completely impossible for economic reasons.

              Stalin. Soldiers never come from economic considerations.
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 13 December 2019 08: 54 New
                -9
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                Would want, crushed. Policy.

                In the 44th he was afraid, in the 45th moment he was missed.
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 09: 05 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Octopus
                  In the 44th I was afraid

                  I was not afraid. Why do they need us? It was from them, only knives were able to do. Even as part of the Republic of Ingushetia, they did not pay taxes, and they were not called up to the army.
                  1. Pedrodepackes
                    Pedrodepackes 13 December 2019 09: 33 New
                    -2
                    Quote: mordvin xnumx
                    Why do they need us?

                    interesting question)) Why do we need Karelians, Sami and Vepsians? Can then give "Kemsku parish" as unnecessary?
                    Quote: mordvin xnumx
                    only knives and knew how to do.
                    We will not discuss too much commodity circulation between the USSR and Finland, especially since the late 70s, where exports from the USSR were mainly raw materials, and imports were engineering products, but:
                    After the collapse of the USSR, Russia became the heir to Soviet debts to Finland, amounting to 600 million euros.
                    good knives, however.
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 09: 42 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Pedrodepackes
                      good knives, however.

                      It was, it was ... Paintwork, for example. I do not argue, the dates were many.
                      Quote: Pedrodepackes
                      good knives, however.

                      Eh ... The reluctance to upload photos where the Finnish scabbard is entirely decorated with our cubicles and badges.
                  2. Octopus
                    Octopus 13 December 2019 09: 38 New
                    -4
                    Quote: mordvin xnumx
                    why do they need us

                    For a collection. Tuva, for example, joined without a pale.
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 09: 45 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Tuva, for example, joined without a pale.

                      Are there many people in that Tuva? Why didn’t they join Alaska? Just because Baranov was in conflict with officers of Her Majesty?
                      1. Octopus
                        Octopus 13 December 2019 09: 48 New
                        -2
                        Quote: mordvin xnumx
                        Are there many people in that Tuva?

                        Many or few, with adopted in a friendly family of Soviet peoples, for some reason.
                        Quote: mordvin xnumx
                        why didn’t they join Alaska?

                        With Alaska, it was impossible without a pale.
        2. naidas
          naidas 15 December 2019 23: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          The Finns are the only people of the Soviet "zone of influence" under the Covenant, who saved (almost all) their homeland from the peace-loving USSR.

          Capitalist Finland needed the USSR as a neutral Switzerland for Hitler.
    2. bistrov.
      bistrov. 13 December 2019 08: 21 New
      +7
      [quote = tlauikol] Finland lost. But they can be proud of such a defeat.

      Write nonsense. Defeat, in any case defeat. In addition, the aggressive regime of Finland received a good kick, which the Finns still remember, therefore they are neutral.
      By the way, Stalin, for some reason, reacted to Finland, after its withdrawal from the war in 1944, too complacent, did not punish properly.
      My father participated in the Finnish war as an ordinary gunner, as part of some kind of combined battalion, he then served in the Black Sea Fleet. I didn’t guess at one time about those events in more detail, but now it’s too late.
      1. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 13 December 2019 09: 19 New
        +5
        Quote: bistrov.
        By the way, Stalin, for some reason, reacted to Finland, after its withdrawal from the war in 1944, too complacent, did not punish properly.

        Why? There, the indemnities were serious and the ban on part of the armament, well, Petsamo was chopped off, depriving the Finns of access to the Barents Sea
      2. Pedrodepackes
        Pedrodepackes 13 December 2019 09: 47 New
        -1
        Quote: bistrov.
        Defeat, in any case, defeat.

        yes, but if you look at the goals set and achieved by the Red Army, you don’t lose so much. The author began by saying that out of the blue, for no reason he stated:
        Moscow did not set the goal of conquering Finland.
        Yes? And then, Otto Wilhelmovich, our comrade Kuusinen, what did the comrades in Moscow do and on the basis of which he signed the “Agreement on Mutual Assistance and Friendship” with the Soviet Union as head of the FDR government? those. comrade Stalin considered Finland already one of the republics of the USSR, but did not take place. The victory over the Finnish armed forces was of course at one of the sites in Finland. but was it worth it?
        Quote: bistrov.
        Finland’s aggressive regime received a good kick, which the Finns still remember, therefore they are neutral.

        Firstly. why are they aggressive if the USSR attacked, and secondly, neutral ???? And why did they then fire at Peter the Great Patriotic War and became Hitler's ally? But if Stalin hadn’t climbed there in the 39th, would the Finns climb on us in the 41st? The big question.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 13 December 2019 13: 02 New
          -2
          Quote: Pedrodepackes
          Moscow did not set the goal of conquering Finland.
          Yes? And then comrade Kuusinen our Otto WilhelmovichWhat did the comrades in Moscow do and on the basis of which he signed the "Agreement on Mutual Assistance and Friendship" with the Soviet Union as head of the FDR government?

          By the way, an interesting "comrade"!

          Here is what his wife, Aino Kuusinen says about him:
          For almost half a century, O. Kuusinen was at the core of not only the CPSU, but also the USSR government. Surprisingly, the foreigner has advanced to leading positions in the government.
          Otto’s success is also explained by the fact that he as a foreigner many things in Russia did not touch, and he made it clear.
          He was always needed by those who owned power, he knew exactly how to deal with the new master.

          Once Kuusinen boasted to me that for his life "Changed the skin like a snake seven times."

          Despite the changes in the USSR, Kuusinen rose step by step higher and higher. He firmly followed the course of Stalin. And just as firmly followed the course of subsequent leaders. In 1941, he joined the Central Committee, in 1957 - the Politburo.

          this man who played such a role in the politics of a huge country was a foreigner, a stranger.

          After all, in fact, little interest in the Soviet Union. Building my secret plans he did not think about the good of Russia.

          Here we had it vice president THE USSR.....
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 14 December 2019 02: 51 New
            +2
            Quote: Olgovich
            Here we had the vice-president of the USSR .....

            First and last vice-president of the USSR - comrade G.I. Yanaev. Comrade Kuusinen was deputy chairman (all the heads of the SSR were deputy chairman) of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces in 40-58. The chairmen of the Presidium of the Armed Forces and, accordingly, the heads of state during this period were alternately Kalinin, Shvernik and Voroshilov. If anyone did not know before, it is easy to guess which hat was the head of state under the Soviet regime until Comrade Gorbachev climbed across the dad.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 14 December 2019 10: 28 New
              -2
              Quote: Octopus
              First and last vice-president of the USSR - comrade G.I. Yanaev. Comrade Kuusinen was deputy chairman (all the heads of the SSR were deputy chairman) Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces in 40-58 Chairmen of the Presidium of the Armed Forces

              1. The concept of "vice" is not familiar?
              2. The President of the Armed Forces of the USSR = President.
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 14 December 2019 11: 57 New
                +2
                No need to cheat.
                1. A person who has a vision in the sense of Yanayev or Rutskoi is the one who will take the president’s place in the event of his retirement. One of the 16 deputies of Shvernik is not a vise.
                2. Shvernik is not the president of the USSR, but a talking facsimile. Because the USSR is not a presidential republic.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 14 December 2019 12: 50 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Octopus
                  No need to cheat.
                  1. A person who has a vision in the sense of Yanayev or Rutskoi is the one who will take the president’s place in the event of his retirement. One of the 16 deputies of Shvernik is not a vise.
                  2. Shvernik is not the president of the USSR, but a talking facsimile. Because the USSR is not a presidential republic.

                  No need to light up.

                  1. The meaning is Deputy. The President.
                  2. The president, in fact, was the chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces.
                  3. In fact, the party has power, but that’s another matter.
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 14 December 2019 14: 00 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    No need to light up

                    The word "vice president of the state," as it happened, corresponds to a meaning completely defined by the Americans. You want to gossip what Shvernik actually had there, and what is formal - please, I will not interfere.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 14 December 2019 14: 34 New
                      -3
                      Quote: Octopus
                      The word "vice president of the state", as it happened, corresponds to very definiteth americans sense.

                      spit on the Americans
                      Quote: Octopus
                      You want to gossip what Shvernik actually had there, and what is formal - please, I will not interfere.

                      belay lol
                      "Itself, itself!" (C)
          2. naidas
            naidas 15 December 2019 23: 36 New
            -1
            Quote: Olgovich
            Here is what his wife, Aino Kuusinen says about him:

            As always, Olgovich, ashamed of the Internet, would at least read the source. Although this would be:
            CHAPTER ONE. Links of my fate
            would know when they lived together and what their relationship was with the words of the author.



            But what about the repressions of the Bolsheviks in Sevastopol, there will be documents, and for half a year, bring three times and silence.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 16 December 2019 08: 02 New
              -2
              Quote: naidas
              As always, Olgovich, ashamed from the Internet, even if they read the source

              What rudeness? Source SPECIFIED - Kuusinen's wife.
              Quote: naidas
              CHAPTER ONE. Links of my fate
              would know when they lived together and what their relationship was with the words of the author.


              I read the book in full, chose the main thing from the DIFFERENT parts of the book.

              The relationship was excellent: she DIDN’T HAND her husband even under torture and she saved him.

              After esho betrayal, despised him. And what?
              Quote: naidas
              But how are the repressions of the Bolsheviks in Sevastopol, the documents will be, and in six months three times bring and silence.

              belay How much do you need? And what are you talking about?
      3. kotvov
        kotvov 14 December 2019 10: 25 New
        0
        Stalin, for some reason, reacted to Finland, after its withdrawal from the war in 1944, too complacent, did not punish properly. ,,
        don’t you think that even then he began to build a barrier from neutral or friendly countries?
    3. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 13 December 2019 09: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: Tlauicol
      USSR won. Finland lost. But they can be proud of such a defeat.

      By this logic, the Yankees can be proud of their defeat in Vietnam .. there the losses of the Vietnamese per one killed Yankee were more than 10 to 1. Or are there ours in Afghanistan. What is the use of losses if the war is lost and the goals are not achieved ?!
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 13 December 2019 09: 44 New
        -1
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        Quote: Tlauicol
        USSR won. Finland lost. But they can be proud of such a defeat.

        By this logic, the Yankees can be proud of their defeat in Vietnam .. there the losses of the Vietnamese per one killed Yankee were more than 10 to 1. Or are there ours in Afghanistan. What is the use of losses if the war is lost and the goals are not achieved ?!

        What were Finland’s goals in the war? capture of Moscow? the overthrow of the Soviet government?
        they generally had no options against the strongest army in the world except surrender. But they chose war instead of shame - moreover, they didn’t start the war (without declaration)
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 09: 56 New
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          But they chose war instead of shame - moreover, they didn’t start the war (without declaration)

          And they were warned ...
          The following are the comments of Stalin that he made during the meeting. They were recorded by a Finnish translator who was present at the meeting.

          “None of us are to blame for the fact that the circumstances of the geographical order are as they are. We should be able to block the entrance to the Gulf of Finland. If the channel leading to Leningrad did not pass along your coast, we would not have the slightest reason to raise this issue. Your memorandum is one-sided and overly optimistic. We must bear in mind the likelihood of a worst-case scenario. Tsarist Russia possessed the fortresses of Porkkala and N


          ayssaar with their twelve-inch guns, as well as a naval base near Tallinn. At that time, it was impossible for the enemy to breach our defenses. We do not pretend to be either Porkkala or Naissaar, as they are located too close to the capitals of Finland and Estonia. On the other hand, an effective screening can be created between Hanko and Paldiski.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 13 December 2019 10: 04 New
            -3
            Aha good putting a knife to his throat: "none of us are to blame for the fact that they press me boots, so - take off your shoes! Or give your wallet"
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 13 December 2019 10: 10 New
              +6
              Or give the wallet

              Not this way laughing You attacked me twice, you want to attack me again, so go away, my friend, away!
            2. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 10: 10 New
              +2
              Quote: Tlauicol
              press boots, so - take off your shoes!

              So the negotiations went on for a year.
              Reasonable swag did not flare ... Oh, that is Finns. He worked like that with one Finn, oh, and he was stubborn.
            3. Olgovich
              Olgovich 13 December 2019 11: 56 New
              -8
              Quote: Tlauicol
              "none of us are to blame, that they press me boots therefore - take off your shoes !

              Juicy said yes ... lol good

              Reminds the well-known: “Why are you without glasses?”
        2. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 13 December 2019 10: 05 New
          +7
          Quote: Tlauicol
          they generally had no options against the strongest army in the world except surrender.

          they had the option to agree to a profitable exchange, having received a territory twice as large
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 13 December 2019 10: 16 New
            -5
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            Quote: Tlauicol
            they generally had no options against the strongest army in the world except surrender.

            they had the option to agree to a profitable exchange, having received a territory twice as large

            swamp instead of the sea? would you change 6 acres on the river bank to 12 at the landfill?
            1. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn 13 December 2019 11: 08 New
              +8
              Quote: Tlauicol
              swamp instead of the sea? would you change 6 acres on the river bank to 12 at the landfill?

              Since when did Karelia become a landfill ?! In fact, the Finns themselves chopped off part of our territory, taking advantage of the Civil War.
              The Soviet military leadership is of the opinion that no border other than that established by Peter the Great under the Peace Treaty of Nystadt in 1721 can guarantee Leningrad sufficient security, and it also considers it necessary to transfer the entire territory of Cape Hanko to the USSR.
              They were simply asked to return the captured, in return still giving a decent piece
              3) Finland must transfer to the Soviet Union the islands of the Gulf of Finland and Koivisto, as well as such territory on the Karelian Isthmus, so that the state border would henceforth pass along the line of Lipola-the southern outskirts of Koivisto. In addition, Finland must transfer to the USSR the western part of the Rybachy Peninsula in the Petsamo region (Pechenga). In compensation for this, the Soviet Union will give Finland twice the large territory (5529 square kilometers) in the Repola and Porajärvi area.

              And here is what Mannerheim writes on this subject.
              As I suggested back in the spring, it was necessary to sacrifice the islands of the Gulf of Finland, and on the Karelian Isthmus we should not cling tightly to Ino, which in the eyes of the Russians is of great importance for the defense of Leningrad.
              So the Finnish government simply overestimated its capabilities, and the whole Finland paid
        3. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 15: 44 New
          +3
          Quote: Tlauicol
          What were Finland’s goals in the war? capture of Moscow? the overthrow of the Soviet government?

          Well you! The pragmatic Finnish guys knew the measure. They just wanted to "establish a new border with the USSR along the Neva, the southern shore of Lake Ladoga, Svir, Lake Onega and further to the White Sea and the Arctic Ocean (with the inclusion of the Kola Peninsula)" (Manninen).
          True, some romantics "dreamed of uniting all peoples related to the Finns right up to the Urals" (Seppel) and even drawing the border along the Yenisei.
          Quote: Tlauicol
          they generally had no options against the strongest army in the world except surrender.

          The only thing is that at that time the army of the Soviet Union in the world was considered not only not the strongest, but very weak. Which, as the Finnish officers inspired their soldiers, doesn’t even have tanks, but there are tractors sheathed with painted plywood that can be pierced with a bayonet.
          That is why the Finns did not just prefer the war, but began it with the offensive.
          1. Fraracol_2
            Fraracol_2 13 December 2019 16: 36 New
            0
            What offensive?
            1. Sugar Honeyovich
              Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 16: 39 New
              -3
              From his. Finnish.
              1. Fraracol_2
                Fraracol_2 13 December 2019 18: 25 New
                +1
                Maybe from your Finnish? They did not have their own Finnish.
                1. Sugar Honeyovich
                  Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 18: 48 New
                  0
                  Finnish they had only their own. There was no other.
      2. Deck
        Deck 13 December 2019 09: 55 New
        +5
        Is horseradish proud of the defense of the Brest Fortress? The Germans captured her! Did I understand you correctly. Well, the battle of Borodino there too. And the Luga border. And Prokhorovka.
  4. Paul Siebert
    Paul Siebert 13 December 2019 06: 16 New
    +11
    The Finnish war is the victory of the USSR!
    Our victory.
    Point.
    Against this background, I want to note that not a single patriotic film about the events of the winter of 1939-1940 was ever made either in Russia or in the USSR.
    “An indispensable war,” said the Soviet classic.
    The Finnish winter war was lost amid the Great War. Patriotic.
    Recently, attempts have been made to cover this topic in several series. But unsuccessfully. There are no plots, the actors are wooden, the events are shown fictional, sucked from the finger.
    I immediately remember the film by Alexander Rogozhkin "Cuckoo." Let not about the Finnish war itself, but "based on".
    It is clear that the author of "Features of the National Hunt" for Finland is breathing unevenly.
    There, ecology is better and people are more cultured.
    And what about Russia? Drunks, corrupt cops, the military, transporting vodka for cows in bomb bombs. Homeland Bigfoot.
    But in "Cuckoo," Rogozhkin himself surpassed himself ...
    What do we see?
    The captain of the Red Army, Ivan, was arrested on a denunciation, while a Soviet fighter shot his car on the way to interrogation. He is wounded, he is saved by a young Sami woman. It turns out that the Finnish soldier Veikko is also hiding.
    It would seem - a brilliant plot plot!
    It begs the great film, rejecting violence, exposing war, promoting friendship between nations.
    But in fact?
    The Russian officer is a frank down who couldn’t tell for the whole film what his name is. His hands are growing out of the wrong place, he is constantly hysterical, like a woman, his eyes are in a wet place. The only thing that I managed was to pick up mushrooms. And then - toadstool ...
    In contrast, the handsome Finn. Former student, intellectual, all-rounder dock! Veikko can build a bathhouse and a hostess to please.
    Conclusion: "any Finnish private - the Russian captain will easily shut up for the belt, because - Europe!"
    What can understand our teenager who looked "Cuckoo"?
    What did the Russians denounce each other during the war? And then they stayed in the Sami plague until the end of the war? Or that the Russians are savages? In contrast to civilized Europe ...
    Enough to shoot Russophobian films! The theme of the war with Finland deserves our truthful coverage. Here the Finns shot this. "Talvisoota" is called.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 13 December 2019 06: 42 New
      +4
      Paul Siebert
      The Finnish war is the victory of the USSR! Our victory.
      Definitely!
      Against this background, I want to note that not a single patriotic film about the events of the winter of 1939-1940 was ever made either in Russia or in the USSR.
      Well, for the sake of fairness, they still shot one, the series "Intelligence. Northern Front." True, how “patriotic” can modern filmmakers and screenwriters be, is this a big question? Because the film shows how our mortar battery, naturally, under the command of the stupid and terrible NKVDeshnik, is moving towards the Finnish border to shell our positions, supposedly from the Finns. That is, according to the authors, there were no attacks and provocations by the Finns, so we ourselves had to arrange them. Accordingly, there is no need to talk about patriotism!
      1. Fraracol_2
        Fraracol_2 13 December 2019 16: 34 New
        -1
        And lies too patriotism?
    2. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 13 December 2019 06: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      The only thing that I managed was to pick up mushrooms.

      Ek, you, as Rogozhkin, have been obsessed with his Kuzmich. laughing
    3. Deck
      Deck 13 December 2019 07: 05 New
      +7
      What can understand our teenager who looked "Cuckoo"?


      He will understand that war is bad. And he can watch a completely Russophobic film "They Fought for their Homeland" or, God forbid, "Father of a Soldier". We must watch the ideologically seasoned, spirit-lifting "Rzhev"!
      1. Pedrodepackes
        Pedrodepackes 13 December 2019 09: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: Deck
        We must watch the ideologically seasoned, spirit-lifting "Rzhev"!

        "False" - so they called him watchers.
    4. Pedrodepackes
      Pedrodepackes 13 December 2019 09: 54 New
      -4
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      Against this background, I want to note that not a single patriotic film about the events of the winter of 1939-1940 was ever made either in Russia or in the USSR.
      “An indispensable war,” said the Soviet classic.
      The Finnish winter war was lost amid the Great War. Patriotic.

      it’s because it’s “not famous” because the victory there is doubtful. It is enough to look at the permutations in the top leadership of the Red Army and the sunset of fame of the "first red marshal." At least Khalkhin goal, although it was not uniquely successful for us, was not lost against the background of the Second World War.
      1. Alexander Greene
        Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 00: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Pedrodepackes
        it’s because it’s “not famous” because the victory there is doubtful. It is enough to look at the permutations in the top leadership of the Red Army and the sunset of fame of the "first red marshal."


        And where did you get it. that Voroshilov was pushed and he was lost during the Great Patriotic War?
        These are all the inventions of Khrushchev, which was propagated by Chakovsky.

        After the Finnish war, Voroshilov went on an increase, he became Deputy Prime Minister, Chairman of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars, the same Tymoshenko was under his command.

        During the Great Patriotic War, he also fought not badly, he did not allow to defeat the north-western group of Soviet troops, which then defended Leningrad, and during defensive battles on July 14, the Germans attacking Novgorod simultaneously launched flank attacks from the north and south. As a result, under the city of Soltsy, Manstein’s motorized corps was surrounded, which barely took his legs.

        Then Stalin took summoned to Moscow for negotiations with the Allies on Lend-Lease, then to Tehran, as a military specialist, as a politician, as a diplomat.
        1. Pedrodepackes
          Pedrodepackes 14 December 2019 06: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Alexander Green
          And where did you get it. that Voroshilov was pushed

          and I didn’t say that he was pushed
          Quote: Pedrodepackes
          sunset of fame "first red marshal"

          it’s different, the cult of Voroshilov in the troops and in propaganda ended. And if not for the Second World War, it is still unknown how his fate would have developed.
          Quote: Alexander Green
          After the Finnish War, Voroshilov went on an increase

          purely nominally - yes, but this is the position of a functionary (albeit a high-ranking one), and not a leader, as he was before the "promotion".
          Quote: Alexander Green
          During the Great Patriotic War, he also fought not bad

          perhaps only in the list of commanding fronts by 1945 neither him nor Budenny was. And his career ladder was more likely downward than upward: from the post of the commander-in-chief of the North-West direction, "rise" to the coordinator in the Separate Primorye Army ... no
          1. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 18: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Pedrodepackes
            in the list of commanding fronts by 1945 neither him nor Budenny was

            And this is nothing that Voroshilov at that time was already 64 years old, and 62 Budyonny?
            .
            Quote: Pedrodepackes
            And his career ladder was rather down than up:

            Do not tell me, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR.
            After the death of Stalin, Voroshilov very much prevented Khrushchev from taking power into his own hands and starting to ruin socialism, so he slandered him. This slander is still being circulated, and you believe it.
            Read the book of Peter Balaev.
            Klim Voroshilov. First Marshal of the country of Soviets. Friend
            Stalin, the enemy of Khrushchev. - M.: Book World, 2017 .-- 608 p.
            1. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 15 December 2019 12: 47 New
              0
              Quote: Alexander Green
              And this is nothing that Voroshilov at that time was already 64 years old, and 62 Budyonny?

              nothing
              Quote: Alexander Green
              Do not tell me, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR.

              you are not very well versed in these undercover games, to explain for a long time, if briefly, sometimes it’s better to be a leader of a lower level than a deputy to a big boss.
              Quote: Alexander Green
              This slander is still being circulated, and you believe it.

              Commander-in-chief of the North-West direction at the beginning of the war and coordinator in the Separate Primorye Army - in 1943 this is a fact, not slander.
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 15 December 2019 19: 06 New
                0
                Quote: Pedrodepackes
                Commander-in-chief of the North-West direction at the beginning of the war and coordinator in the Separate Primorye Army - in 1943 this is a fact, not slander.

                Firstly, the directions have already been canceled by this time.
                Secondly, he carried out instructions on negotiations with the allies - and this is a level higher than the command of the front.
                Thirdly, Deputy. "Premiere", Chairman of the Defense Committee, Chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR !. And do you read this sunset career? Do not make people laugh.
                1. Pedrodepackes
                  Pedrodepackes 16 December 2019 16: 26 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  Firstly, the directions have already been canceled by this time.

                  correctly, canceled, the High Command of the North-West direction existed from July 10 to August 27, 1941. But, he was subordinated to the Northern and North-Western fronts, as well as the Northern and Baltic fleets, then the command of the front, then - the representative of the headquarters at the front, and so on, to the post of coordinator in a separate Primorye army. And then he began with the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR! Good takeoff good
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  Deputy. "Premiere", Chairman of the Defense Committee, Chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR !. And do you read this sunset career?

                  these are all posts of the "wedding general" in the then USSR. You are not looking at positions, but the political situation of that time. To do this, many sources must be overcome and bit by bit to understand what a particular move or position was worth. And then you give a link to one source and that one is wrong. And it turns out that
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR.
                  he became just under Khrushchev, and you write that
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  After the death of Stalin, Voroshilov very much prevented Khrushchev from taking control of his hands and starting to ruin socialism, so he slandered him
                  . Although just under Stalin, he rolled down from the post of People's Commissar to the coordinator. Learn, develop hi
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 16 December 2019 19: 38 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Pedrodepackes
                    . Although just under Stalin, he rolled down from the post of People's Commissar to the coordinator. Learn, develop

                    Sorry, dear, but you still need to learn and develop, because you still have a lot of misunderstandings, for example, in the levels and priorities of management.

                    You see only the external attributes of the post, and there are higher levels of control, global. So Voroshilov after the post of People’s Commissar of Defense came to a different, higher level of government, he began to solve global public tasks.

                    You have seen enough of the movie "Blockade" according to the script of Chakovsky, and believe in all that nonsense that you hung on your ears. But in reality, everything was different.

                    After returning to Moscow from the Leningrad Front, K.E. Voroshilov takes part in the Moscow conference of representatives of the USSR, USA and England on issues of mutual military-economic assistance. ” Question about Lend-Lease! Then Tehran - Question of a second front!

                    What could be more important than these issues? And note that it was not Zhukov who was invited to this work, but Voroshilov, and all because the military and political experience of management and the horizons of Voroshilov were much higher than that of Zhukov.

                    I.V. Stalin did not need Petrushka in the negotiations, but the highest military authority in the USSR, which could conduct equal negotiations with the American and British military.

                    And Voroshilov’s other tasks during the war were global, both on the fronts and in the rear: guiding the partisan movement, forming reserve forces for the defense of Moscow at the most critical time. Think for yourself what could have been more responsible and serious in the most difficult moments of the war?
                    1. Pedrodepackes
                      Pedrodepackes 16 December 2019 20: 25 New
                      0
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      You only see the external attributes of the post,

                      that's just about this your flaw, I told you earlier
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      Have you seen enough of the movie "Blockade" according to the script of Chakovsky

                      did not watch
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      I.V. Stalin did not need Petrushka in the negotiations, but the highest military authority in the USSR

                      .... as our head of the RTO said: "What a distant person you are ..." On this, let me take my leave hi
  5. Operator
    Operator 13 December 2019 07: 03 New
    +7
    Who lost his territory, he lost in the war.

    After the breakthrough of the Mannerheim line in 1940, an unprotected territory of southern Finland opened up before the Red Army (where 90% of the population lived and all Finnish industry was located).

    However, the offensive of the Red Army was canceled due to the danger of the emergence of a military alliance between Germany and France and Britain. If such a danger did not exist, then during the battles for southern Finland the number of Finnish casualties among the military and civilian would be guaranteed to exceed the number of losses of the Red Army in the battles on the Karelian Isthmus in central Finland.

    The same thing (the abolition of the Red Army offensive) happened in 1944 due to the opposition of the USA and Britain to Finland joining the USSR.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 13 December 2019 08: 33 New
      -4
      Quote: Operator
      the number of Finnish casualties among military and civilian would be guaranteed to exceed the number of losses of the Red Army

      Yes, civilian casualties are certainly a matter of pride. Both their own and others.
      Quote: Operator
      It happened in 1944 due to the opposition of the USA and Britain to Finland joining the USSR.

      Generally true. The Finns were once again lucky. They ended with the continuation war precisely in that short period between the Warsaw Uprising and Yalta, when the Allies were extremely dissatisfied with the Soviet regime, and comrade. Stalin was seriously afraid that he had gone too far and might row. After Yalta, Comrade Stalin was greatly emboldened (he saw that Roosevelt could no longer be feared, and Churchill alone was not dangerous), but the moment was missed.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 09: 17 New
        +11
        Quote: Octopus
        They ended with the continuation war precisely in that short period between the Warsaw Uprising and Yalta, when the Allies were extremely dissatisfied with the Soviet regime, and comrade. Stalin was seriously afraid

        The allies were always dissatisfied with the Soviet regime and the Soviet country. Specifically, in the war - by doing a good deed - turning Hitler’s neck, she did not fall lifeless, but had the audacity to strengthen and increase her authority in the world. Those. Stalin specifically in the summer of 1944 had nothing to fear against the general background.
        Most importantly, it was during this period that the fourth Stalinist strike occurred, as a result of which Mannerheim declared the physical impossibility of continuing the war. Finland made a feint with her ears, replacing the government, she said that she was not responsible for the actions of the former and all contract-obligations with Germany no longer exist. Simple and tasteful.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 13 December 2019 09: 33 New
          -7
          Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
          The Allies were always dissatisfied with the Soviet regime and the Soviet country.

          Unfortunately, Roosevelt fully believed that the USSR was its ally against Britain. Even Truman in the critical months of the 45th year kept this criminal, destructive course.
          Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
          Stalin specifically in the summer of 1944 had nothing to fear against the general background.

          In the fall of the 44th, at least a Lend-Lease stop was discussed. With the reversal of the policy of the Allies in the 44th, comrade Stalin would discuss the borders of the USSR before the Pact in the 45th, and not the “zone of influence” in Europe.
          Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
          Mannerheim declared physical impossibility to continue the war

          Mannerheim continued the war, recall. But already on the "right" side. This is the state wisdom of politicians of small countries in big trouble.
          1. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 14: 19 New
            +3
            Quote: Octopus
            In the fall of the 44th, at least a Lend-Lease stop was discussed.

            And the maximum?
            Quote: Octopus
            Mannerheim continued the war, recall. But already on the "right" side. This is the state wisdom of politicians of small countries in big trouble.

            Well, yes - to betray in time - this is not to betray, but to anticipate. But it is not only small countries that practice.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 13 December 2019 14: 32 New
              -3
              Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
              But it is not only small countries that practice.

              You are right, of course. Therefore, in international affairs, the word "betrayal" is generally not applicable. Change in circumstances.
              Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
              A maximum

              Rejection of the crazy idea of ​​a complete and unconditional surrender of Germany. Let me remind you, this was Roosevelt’s idea.
              1. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 16: 41 New
                +1
                Quote: Octopus
                Rejection of the crazy idea of ​​a complete and unconditional surrender of Germany.

                Was this idea crazy? And what was offered in return? Churchill's idea, I remember, was in the dismemberment of Germany into several countries.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 13 December 2019 17: 57 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
                  Was this idea crazy? And what was offered in return?

                  Yes, anything. Let me remind you that during the surrender of France, Petten was the head of state, he remained the head of the Vichy government. The same applies to the Mikado, the monarchs of northern Europe under German occupation, etc. Of the losers of the WWI, it seems, only Nikki was shot, and then not for that. Willy, for example, died in the year 41 in a small estate in the Netherlands.
                  So the victory in WWII, strictly speaking, did not even imply the removal of Hitler from power as something obligatory. And some kind of constructive government of Speer, especially Mine - no questions at all.

                  Moreover, nowhere is it written that the Atlantic Charter does not apply to Germany. So the position "let the Germans self-determine" was quite logical.

                  Just the option that was implemented is an exception to the rule.
                  Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
                  Churchill's idea, I remember, was in the dismemberment of Germany into several countries.

                  This is not Churchill, if I understand you correctly, this is Morgenthau, one of the Roosevelt figures. An example of what happens when a former Minister of Agriculture comes up with felt-tip pens and a map Poland.
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 13 December 2019 09: 13 New
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      If such a danger did not exist, then during the battles for southern Finland the number of Finnish casualties among the military and civilian would be guaranteed to exceed the number of losses of the Red Army in the battles on the Karelian Isthmus in central Finland.
      I agree with you! Moreover, the Finns had already lost at that time the military personnel, their elite. Shyutskur and the militia, hardly would seriously be able to resist the Red Army. The same Wehrmacht in 44-45, suffered much greater losses than at the beginning of the war, because all the veterans were killed, and there were not enough soldiers, had to throw unprepared into battle, and as a result, high losses. While the Red Army gained experience and opportunities for more thorough preparation of replenishment was more.
  6. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 13 December 2019 07: 43 New
    +1
    ..... It would be logical to deliver the main blow in Karelia. Capturing Finland through the Karelian Isthmus was stupid ..... On the isthmus, the Finns had three lines of fortifications of the Mannerheim line. And on hundreds of kilometers of the rest of the border with the USSR, the Finns had nothing serious. In addition, in winter this forest and lake-marshland was passable. Obviously, any reasonable person, not to mention the Soviet General Staff and Headquarters, will plan a deep invasion through unprotected sections of the border. The USSR could dismember Finland with deep blows, depriving it of ties with Sweden, from where there came a stream of volunteers, financial assistance, access to the Gulf of Bothnia. If the goal was to capture Finland, then the Red Army would act this way, and not storm the Mannerheim line ....

    Here I am, as "any rational person" I’m sitting and thinking, why then did they stumble upon the fortifications of the Mannerheim line, instead of an attack in Karelia? And the answer is simple - “hats” - “hat-making” attitude towards the Finns and their fortifications and the complete lack of intelligence. They jumped on the fortifications not from the big mind of the "General Staff", but according to the usual Russian stupidity, not having worked out the operation in detail, relying on the "maybe" and the "weakness" of the Finns .. They thought that when they saw how "powerful" the Red Army is, the Finns as a "class-heterogeneous adversary" they begin to surrender en masse and joyfully rush into the arms of collective farms and with slender columns set off for Siberia to "the great socialist construction projects" under the protection of the NKVD. The Finns did not want such a “joy” and rendered fierce and competent resistance which they ended when .... they realized that the promised help from England and France would not come into a war with Germany, and Sweden made it clear that there would be no Finland to get into the Second World War .... They defeated the Finns .... or threw corpses? How then, the entire Great Patriotic War, "competent military commanders" and "General Staff" did?
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 13 December 2019 08: 13 New
      +4
      Here I am, as "any rational person" I’m sitting and thinking, why then did they stumble upon the fortifications of the Mannerheim line, instead of an attack in Karelia?

      In fact, north of Ladoga, the Red Army suffered the most severe losses in the Special Forces.
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 08: 51 New
      +2
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      the promised help from England, France, who got into a war with Germany, will not come,

      Verdun, Somme? In 1939-40? No, plans for bombing Baku.
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      How then, the entire Great Patriotic War, "competent military commanders" and "General Staff" did?

      And how? There were so many people to “shower with corpses”. So won by skill. Competently.
    3. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 13 December 2019 09: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      The Finns did not want such a “joy” and rendered fierce and competent resistance which they ended when .... they realized that the promised help from England and France would not come into a war with Germany, and Sweden made it clear that there would be no Finland to get into the Second World War .... They defeated the Finns .... or threw corpses?

      The Finns had to agree to an exchange of territories! even Mannerheim, strongly advised the then leadership not to rest. So Finland, definitely lost. The fact that they put a bunch of our soldiers there is little comfort, considering how many Finns were later evicted from their territories, including the second most populated city of Vyborg.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 13 December 2019 09: 34 New
        -4
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        even Mannerheim, strongly advised the then leadership not to rest.

        The Estonian SSR checked this option.
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        considering how many Finns were later evicted from their territories,

        They managed to withdraw Vyborg before the appearance of the Red Army there.
    4. Moskovit
      Moskovit 13 December 2019 09: 14 New
      +2
      Maybe you first look at the map of Finland? Why fools Finns built fortifications in that place.
    5. Glory1974
      Glory1974 13 December 2019 09: 45 New
      +1
      And the answer is simple - “hats” - “hat-making” attitude towards the Finns and their fortifications and the complete lack of intelligence. They jumped on the fortifications not from the big mind of the "General Staff", but according to the usual Russian stupidity, not having worked out the operation in detail, relying on the "maybe" and the "weakness" of the Finns .. They thought that when they saw how "powerful" the Red Army is, the Finns as a "class-heterogeneous adversary" begin to surrender en masse

      Unfortunately, you are probably right. Initially, they tried to limit themselves to only one Leningrad military district, they did not count on serious resistance, etc.
      As reminiscent of the incompetent start of the 1st Chechen war. The same mistakes.
  7. Fraracol_2
    Fraracol_2 13 December 2019 08: 36 New
    0
    Another nasty little article that has nothing to do with historical truth and common sense. The author here seems to have surpassed himself in cynicism and falsification of history. Among the usual delirium, the cannibal is especially shocking:
    УтThere is a myth about large-scale Stalinist repressions against the military in 1937-1938, which weakened the Red Army (in fact, "cleansing" in the army strengthened the armed forces, without them we could even lose the Great Patriotic War) ˮ
    Those. results of repressions, only among senior officers:
    - Of the five marshals available by 1937, three were repressed, all were shot;
    - of the four commanders of the 1st rank - four
    - of the two flagships of the fleet of rank 1 - both
    - out of 12 commanders of the 2nd rank - all 12;
    - out of 67 comcor-60;
    - out of 199 divisors - 136
    - out of 397 brigades - 211,
    according to the delirious opinion of the author, they benefited the country and the army, and it seems that this especially helped at the beginning of the war? !!!!
    I will not consider the rest of the pearls here, but I especially liked it:
    ˮMoscow was not going to conquer Finland. The main task was to enlighten the unreasonable Finns.
    Those. Kuusinen sitting on suitcases with his gang was not intended to overthrow the legitimate government of Finland? And the poor and stupid Finns did not seem to see their potential "happiness"?
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 13 December 2019 08: 52 New
      -1
      Quote: Fraancol_2
      Those. Kuusinen sitting on suitcases with his gang was not intended to overthrow the legitimate government of Finland?

      You underestimate Stalin and Molotov. T. Kuusinen was the legitimate government of Finland, with which the Soviet government concluded an agreement on friendship and mutual assistance against the White Finnish gangs.

      True, closer to spring, Comrade Molotov for some reason decided to negotiate precisely with the White Finnish gangs, and even with the mandatory participation of the tsar's executioner Mannerheim. Comrade Kuusinen was lost somewhere at that moment.
      Quote: Fraancol_2
      ˮMoscow was not going to conquer Finland

      Denial of the existence of KF SSR is the basics for the whistlers of this genre.
      Quote: Fraancol_2
      The author here seems to have surpassed himself in cynicism and falsification of history.

      Well what are you. The author own story. He writes in the original genre for about 10 years, it seems.
      1. Fraracol_2
        Fraracol_2 13 December 2019 10: 32 New
        -1
        Is this how legal?
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 13 December 2019 10: 42 New
          +2
          Quote: Fraancol_2
          Is this how legal?

          Comrade Molotov said it was legal. Because Comrade Kuuninsen is a people's government, and Mr. Kallio, accordingly, is anti-people. Comrade Molotov understood such things.
          1. Fraracol_2
            Fraracol_2 13 December 2019 10: 51 New
            -5
            He will not lie. In general, the Finns loved him very much.
            https://youtu.be/p8PEMI_xyoI
            1. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 13 December 2019 18: 09 New
              -1
              Quote: Fraancol_2
              https://youtu.be/p8PEMI_xyoI

              yes, the song is funny, only the frames are sad
    2. Deck
      Deck 13 December 2019 10: 09 New
      -2
      Another nasty little article that has nothing to do with historical truth and common sense.


      Something they are frequent. Either an aggravation, or an order
    3. strannik1985
      strannik1985 13 December 2019 10: 17 New
      0
      Those. Kuusinen sitting on suitcases with his gang was not intended to overthrow the legitimate government of Finland?

      Following your logic, the Finnish parliament, discussing the possibility of creating a "Russian government" (they planned to invite Kerensky, then Trotsky to the place of the head) wanted, no more, no less, how to occupy the entire territory of the USSR? laughing
    4. naidas
      naidas 15 December 2019 23: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Fraancol_2
      according to the delirious opinion of the author, they benefited the country and the army, and it seems that this especially helped at the beginning of the war? !!!!

      read the field charter of 1939. tanks and interaction with the infantry. These military commanders would shoot at him, either shoot themselves or surrender like a Vlasov.
  8. Albatroz
    Albatroz 13 December 2019 09: 14 New
    +3
    It is sad not only that the Soviet troops managed to achieve the result with heavy losses and far from all that they wanted. Serious miscalculations in the military development of the Red Army and the flaws in the conduct of hostilities were evident, and they were partially evaluated at that time.
    It is sad that this was seen by an ally of the USSR - Hitler's Germany, and he took into account when preparing the Barbarossa plan
  9. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 09: 19 New
    0
    Almost literal quotes from Yu.I. Mukhin. However, plagiarism.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 13 December 2019 09: 51 New
      +1
      Mukhin still also relied on someone. Although the article could have mentioned sources.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. smaug78
    smaug78 13 December 2019 10: 50 New
    0
    "In Russia, the" democratic public "believes that in the winter of 1939-1940 Finland won a moral, political and even military victory over the Stalinist Soviet Union, the" evil empire. " Well done Samsonov - he invents a lie himself and joyfully refutes it, and even steals from others ...
    1. Fibrizio
      Fibrizio 13 December 2019 10: 55 New
      0
      There is an expression "Pyrrhic victory." This is just about the Finnish company.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 15: 54 New
        +1
        As far as we know, “pyrrhic” is a victory, after which the position of the army or country militarily becomes worse than it was before it. Those. victory, essentially close to defeat. For the USSR, this does not apply sideways to the result of the Finnish war.
        Interestingly, the victory of the Swedes on Narva 19.11.1700/XNUMX/XNUMX should be called "pyrrhic" or not?
        1. Fibrizio
          Fibrizio 13 December 2019 16: 00 New
          0
          There is also such a definition of "victory that has come at too high a price." It is fully suitable.
          There is a correlation of territories like that of Germany and Luxembourg. And to be proud of the victory over the dwarf at the cost of such 126 lives and the mat part is strange to say the least.
          Moreover I will say - if they had not won - it would be strange.

          And Narva, there’s no reason to compare. It was an episode of the war of equal rivals.
          I would even say that the loss went to the benefit of Russia, because a huge amount of regressive noble militia was lost, which Peter had to reckon with.
          1. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 13 December 2019 16: 57 New
            +1
            The definition of “victory that has come at too high a price” is often applied to the Great Patriotic War, and it was also seen that it was applied to the victories of A.V. Suvorov. It remains only to find out: what price should be considered "too" high? Presumably, there is not "too"? And just "low"?
            Quote: Fibrizio
            It was an episode of the war of equal rivals.

            This does not at all preclude the possibility of a Pyrrhic victory of one of the parties.
            Quote: Fibrizio
            that loss went to the benefit of Russia,

            That is exactly what I had in mind.
            Quote: Fibrizio
            killed a huge number of regressive noble militia

            About 8 thousand are considered dead from all causes (out of about 40 thousand available). It is clear that mostly soldiers died. Were they mostly noblemen?
            1. Fibrizio
              Fibrizio 17 December 2019 12: 25 New
              -1
              In general, many noble cavalry, representing the color of the then society, perished. Of course, the soldier died more. But 500-600 noblemen is nexilo. Especially when you consider that all this was almost entirely opposition.
  12. Blue fox
    Blue fox 13 December 2019 11: 02 New
    +3
    Briefly.
    Finland defeated the Soviet Socialist Republic so that:
    - The border was pushed away from Leningrad right beyond Vyborg, also to the north (very few people remember this, but the Finns could not go to the White Sea-Baltic Canal only after almost five months of the war !!, and before that it somehow went under bombing, but loads continued to arrive, and the Oktyabrskaya railway was not as fast as we would like to be able to cut);
    - The transfer by the Finns of Hanko, where the creation of the Baltic Fleet's naval base began (similarly, not everyone knows how the Finns were afraid of the Russian counterattack with Hanko in 1941, almost directly to Helsinki, how many pillboxes and bunkers they had riveted there and how much they kept there forces, including battalions of Swedish volunteers, which were needed as needed on other sectors of the front, for example, on Svir, where the 163-PD Wehrmacht together with the Finns, according to the plan, had to break through Svir to Tikhvin and connect there with the main German units, by closing the second ring of the blockade, after which there would simply be no Road of Life with all the consequences).
    1. Blue fox
      Blue fox 13 December 2019 12: 50 New
      -1
      Judging by the number of minuses, it becomes clear that Manner didn’t just open the board in St. Petersburg in St. Petersburg, there are enough last ones.
  13. Engineer
    Engineer 13 December 2019 11: 31 New
    +5
    Opa, even Samsonov recognized the official loss figures of 126 thousand (which are irrevocable). Somewhere in the depths of consciousness, the remnants of adequacy are found. What will the heart-rending cries of "Pharmaceutical lies" say to this? laughing ?
    Further standard game. The Finns hide the losses, in fact, were left without an army. A year later, the truth again had her.
    And the passage about how the Red Army specially hit in the strongest place of the enemy’s defense in order to deprive him of this very defense is worthy of separate admiration.
    The Red Army gained invaluable combat experience. Soviet troops quickly showed that with the help of modern aviation, artillery, tanks, engineering units, quiteQuickly crack the most powerful defense.

    Oh really?
    The vast majority of Finnish long-term structures were single-story, partially buried in the ground with reinforced concrete structures in the form of a bunker, divided into several rooms by internal partitions with armored doors. Three bunkers of the “millionth” type had two levels, another three bunkers - three levels. I emphasize exactly the level. That is, their combat casemates and shelters were located at different levels relative to the surface, casemates with embrasures slightly buried in the ground and completely buried connecting their galleries with the barracks. Structures with what can be called floors were negligible. ” Eit was much weaker than the fortifications of the Molotov line, not to mention the Maginot line with multi-storey caponiers, equipped with their own power plants, kitchens, lounges and all amenities, with underground galleries connecting the pillboxes, and even underground narrow gauge railways. Along with the famous granite boulders, the Finns used low-quality concrete notches designed for obsolete Renault tanks and that turned out to be weak against the guns of new Soviet equipment

    This is Isaev


    And yes, objectively, the Winter War is a victory for the USSR.
  14. Blue fox
    Blue fox 13 December 2019 12: 20 New
    +3
    Quote: Engineer
    Further standard game. The Finns hide the losses, in fact, were left without an army. A year later, the truth again had her.

    On January 24, 1941, the Finnish parliament passed a draft law on military service, which increased the regular military service life from 1 year to 2 years, and the draft age decreased from 21 years to 20 years. Thus, in active military service in 1941 there were immediately 3 draft ages.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 13 December 2019 13: 40 New
      0
      This is a good post. But the conclusion that the Finnish army was defeated is still untrue. Mannerheim writes army thanks to this strengthened, but not restored
      1. Alexander Greene
        Alexander Greene 13 December 2019 23: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Engineer
        But the conclusion that the Finnish army was defeated is still untrue.

        Why then did they give up so quickly ?. More than 110 thousand fought some fanatical shooters against the Red Army. Were they all such cowards? England and France promised them, hold on for another week and they will send them an expeditionary force of 150 thousand people.

        The Finnish military themselves indicate heavy losses.
        According to a report dated March 8, 1940, Lieutenant General Heinrichs, commander of the group on the Karelian Isthmus “The strength of the battalions is less than 250 people; daily losses are in the thousands ”

        Mannerheim, testifying to the breakthrough of the main line of the Finnish defense by Soviet troops, admitted this too: "The defenders, whose losses were huge, could not hold back tanks and infantry that had wedged into their positions."
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 14 December 2019 03: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Green
          hold on for another week and they will send

          They lasted three months. Not sent. Let me remind you that a much stronger Poland lasted three weeks.
          Quote: Alexander Green
          The Finnish military themselves indicate heavy losses.

          This is a constant problem. All armies in the XNUMXth century each time faced with the fact that the loss of infantry, specifically rifflemen, for some reason was several times higher than the average for the armed forces. Each time it was a complete surprise.
          However, even in the division of the 40s there are not so many rifflemen, so against the background of the size of the army as a whole, the losses are much smaller.
          1. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 18: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            Let me remind you that a much stronger Poland lasted three weeks.

            Your comparison is not correct. Poland was defeated in a "clean field", the Poles did not even have time to establish a front line, and the Finns sat behind the "fortifications"
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 14 December 2019 19: 21 New
            +4
            Quote: Octopus
            They lasted three months. Not sent. Let me remind you that a much stronger Poland lasted three weeks.

            Incorrect comparison, if only because only one USSR district fought in Finnish in the winter. And the mobilized Wehrmacht fought against Poland, in which there were ten times more military personnel than in the LenVO, and it was much easier to fight in September than in December. At the same time, I am not building illusions about the combat capabilities of the Polish army, but this example is not suitable for comparison with the Finnish war.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 14 December 2019 21: 18 New
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              for comparison with the Finnish war, this example is not suitable.

              All wars are different. And the Polish army for the time being considered one of the strongest in Europe.
        2. Engineer
          Engineer 14 December 2019 12: 25 New
          +3
          [quote] England and France promised them, hold on for another week and they will send them an expeditionary force of 150 thousand people. [/ quote]
          Believe promises having the example of Poland? It is another matter to use the threat of foreign aid in diplomacy.
          Here is what Mannerheim writes
          [quote] At the final stage of the war, the weakest point was not a lack of materials, but a shortage of manpower. The front stretched out, all the available troops were already involved, and people were mortally tired. Will we be able to confront the enemy before the spring thaw gives us a few weeks to breathe? On an extended front, passing on impassable terrain, this seemed quite achievable, but on the main theater of operations, where the ability to defend was on the verge of collapse, a retreat seemed inevitable. What's next? The doubt that the Western powers would be able to help us became clearer, and when the expected German attack on France becomes a fact, we will be left all alone. Until the army is defeated and we haveiplomatic trump card in [305] as a threat of intervention from the western powers, the best way out is to try to stop hostilities. [/ quote]
          Quite pragmatic
          quote] "The defenders, whose losses were enormous, could not hold back the tanks and infantry that had wedged into their positions." [/ quote]
          Selective citation is our everything. laughing
          Here is the full quote.
          [quote] Since the site in the Summa region was too tough a nut, the main blow was moved east, to the direction of Lahti. The attack was preceded by artillery preparation from a hundred batteries: the artillery raid was aimed at a narrow zone and destroyed trenches and firing points ... The defending side, which suffered huge losses, could not resist the tanks and infantry that had penetrated the positions. [/ quote]
          That is, we are talking about main strike direction on the narrow front at Lahti

          With Finland’s human resources, everything is clear. Lack of manpower. And not people in general, but the trained staff. Lose 70 thousand from the original composition of 250 thousand. At the same time, losses are in the parts of the first line and not the rear and security. The reserves of the cadre pre-war army are exhausted (not to be confused with its destruction). There is nothing to shut up new breakthroughs (it is possible by the Syutskor and volunteers, but the Finns did not dare to do this). I remind you that if the enemy broke through the front, then the war from a positional turns into maneuverable and now it’s impossible to fight back with times less forces and means. It is difficult to remove troops from other sectors as indicated above. The Red Army of that period adored the “Brusilov” offensives, with the fetter constraining the enemy in other sectors. The Finns had forces in training centers - 14 battalions. But they have not completed the training until the end and could not be equipped 100%. Nevertheless, it was Mannerheim’s reserve, which he was preparing to throw into battle if the world had been rejected by the Soviet side.
          1. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 18: 54 New
            -1
            Quote: Engineer
            the reserves of the cadre pre-war army are exhausted (not to be confused with its destruction). There is nothing to shut up new breakthroughs (it is possible by the Syutskor and volunteers, but the Finns did not dare to do this).

            If reserves are exhausted, this means one thing - the army is destroyed and there is nothing to replenish it. Conclusion: the Finns have big losses.

            If the Finns did not dare to attract the Shutskors and volunteers, then this means their low civil liability. Conclusion: the Finns have a "gut" weak, unlike Soviet people ..
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 14 December 2019 19: 08 New
              0
              If reserves are exhausted, this means one thing - the army is destroyed and there is nothing to replenish it. Conclusion: the Finns have big losses.

              Running out of reserves means running out of reserves.
              The Finns have really large losses of up to 30 percent of the original army. For linear infantry units, the proportion of losses should be even higher.
              If the Finns did not dare to attract the Shutskors and volunteers, then this means their low civil liability. Conclusion: the Finns have a "gut" weak, unlike Soviet people ..

              This is the post of the day. The war is lost, but you need to fight to the last Finn. Plus, the decision to end the struggle was made by politicians (absolutely right), not soldiers. Those were ready to fight further.

              Fans to seek understatement in the Finnish losses please comment on the fact.
              Captured Finns -1200
              Captured Red Army soldiers -6000

              Firstly, it is in good agreement with the ratio of casualties to those killed and wounded.
              Secondly, whose guts are thinner?
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 20: 44 New
                -1
                Quote: Engineer
                Fans to seek understatement in the Finnish losses please comment on the fact.
                Captured Finns -1200
                Captured Red Army soldiers -6000

                Firstly, it is in good agreement with the ratio of casualties to those killed and wounded.
                Secondly, whose guts are thinner?

                I do not see any correlation. If 1200 and 6000 prisoners surrendered under the white flag, then one could still compare, and even then, there are always a bunch of nuances.
                And about the gut. In the Great Patriotic War in almost every Soviet city, silence and volunteers came to his defense.
                1. Engineer
                  Engineer 14 December 2019 21: 12 New
                  0
                  I do not see any correlation.

                  Of course. The official ratio of casualties to those killed and wounded and the ratio of casualties to prisoners is the same as one in five. Uncomfortable somehow. It must be ignored.
                  In the Great Patriotic War in almost every Soviet city, silence and volunteers came to his defense.

                  Here are just a single city, the militia and volunteers themselves did not defend themselves and played everywhere a secondary role.
                  These are just two different paradigms. Either the cadre army is carefully selected, albeit with a draft contingent, but from the optimal ages, or mass, total. The Finnish cadre soldier definitely surpassed his Soviet counterpart. It could not be otherwise. It is always easier to create a small quality system than a mass one when growth diseases are overcome, when inflexibility and delay of information flows at every step. But this personnel army is killed, wounded, fettered by battles at the front and staffing no reserves. The only trump card is lost. Hastily creating a universal army means competing with the enemy where he is obviously stronger. Not only does the enemy have more, he already has it. So you have to put up. Finns, they are not stupid.
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 22: 23 New
                    0
                    Quote: Engineer
                    But this cadre army was killed, wounded, shackled by fighting at the front and there are no cadre reserves.

                    And I mean that the Finnish army was defeated.
                    And you wrote, “But the conclusion that the Finnish army was defeated is still untrue. Mannerheim writes that the army was strengthened, not restored,”
                    If strengthened, then why surrendered?
                    1. Engineer
                      Engineer 14 December 2019 22: 38 New
                      0
                      there are basic concepts
                      The defeat is a loss of more than 50% percent, while management is disturbed and organized resistance is impossible. The Finns did not have this, but they could soon get it if the war continued. But the defeat was not unique. The withdrawal of troops organized, without any bags and boilers.
                      If strengthened, then why surrendered?

                      Please read carefully
                      January 24 1941 the parliament of Finland passed the conscription law

                      Here is the original post of the Blue Fox user. My comment was respectively about the 41st and not the 40th
                      In the 41st, yes, strengthened. Mannerheim wrote that the size of the field army increased by 15 brigades (I write from memory)
                      1. Alexander Greene
                        Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 22: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: Engineer
                        My comment was respectively about the 41st and not the 40th

                        Well, I tell you about Thomas, and you tell me about Yerema.
                      2. Engineer
                        Engineer 14 December 2019 22: 46 New
                        0
                        Well, I tell you about Thomas, and you tell me about Yerema.

                        Exactly. It’s strange at all that you drag my dialogue with another user about a different time period here
                      3. Alexander Greene
                        Alexander Greene 15 December 2019 01: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Exactly. It’s strange at all that you drag my dialogue with another user about a different time period here

                        I really did not understand about the “gain”, but I disputed something else:
                        Quote: Engineer
                        But the conclusion that the Finnish army was defeated is still untrue.

                        I hope this refers to the period of the winter war of 1939-1940?
                      4. Engineer
                        Engineer 15 December 2019 11: 38 New
                        0
                        I hope this refers to the period of the winter war of 1939-1940?

                        Yes
                      5. Alexander Greene
                        Alexander Greene 15 December 2019 19: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: Engineer
                        I hope this refers to the period of the winter war of 1939-1940?

                        Yes

                        Then it’s unbelievable, the army is not defeated, help is about to come, and they surrendered ...
                      6. Engineer
                        Engineer 15 December 2019 19: 49 New
                        0
                        Our song is good, start over laughing
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 13 December 2019 12: 54 New
    +1
    The author (+), because of you, almost did not think well of Shpakovsky! (theme, illustrations, but koment!)
  • Tests
    Tests 13 December 2019 14: 11 New
    +2
    Well, yes, yes, peace-loving Finns who started wars twice in the 20th century (though one of them is called tribal war in Finland) ... They just dreamed of Great Finland from the Barents Sea to the Baltic Sea in Estonia through the White Sea in East Karelia. Who called these "peace-loving" people to Povenets, who NEVER belonged neither to Sweden, nor to the Grand Duchy of Finland, nor to the Republic of Finland. They "returned their" in 1941 ?!
    Speaking of the "Winter War" they recall the Karelian Isthmus and battles north of Lake Ladoga. And to the north that there were no fights? What a hurricane sclerosis ?!
    As a result of the war, whose became East Salla. And about those lands on which the Paz hydroelectric power stations today stand, who were they at the beginning of 1940? And where was the USSR border pillar with number 1, and where the enemy troops could not cross the land border of the USSR in 1941? When was this pillar installed and as a result of what event? Wow ...
  • ccsr
    ccsr 13 December 2019 19: 01 New
    +4
    Author:
    Alexander Samsonov
    At the same time, the Winter War played a bad thing with Hitler’s leadership. In Berlin, as well as in Helsinki, they underestimated the enemy. They decided that since the Red Army had been so busy with the Finns for so long, the Wehrmacht would be able to conduct a “lightning war” in Russia.

    Absolutely accurately noticed, indeed our unsuccessful actions in the Finnish misled the military leadership of Germany, which is why the unrealistic plan “Barbarossa” was born.
    In general, the article is objective and competent, so it is useful to study it for those who are interested in the Finnish war.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 13 December 2019 20: 08 New
      +1
      ... that’s why the unrealistic plan of Barbarossa was born.

      It was real under the conditions of the Lightning War, but the Lightning War with Russia was a priori unrealistic. So, "wherever you throw - everywhere a wedge." Or Hitler’s ridiculous attempt to jump at himself with a slave. hi
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 13 December 2019 20: 17 New
        +5
        Quote: Sea Cat
        It was real, subject to the Lightning War,

        A blitzkrieg in non-nuclear times is possible only with a weak or cowardly adversary, and the USSR was not like that for Germany, although it was inferior in technological development, modern armaments and training of troops.
        That's why the Barbarossa plan was unrealistic in any scenario. But the fact that the Finnish war misled the developers of the plan is obvious to me.
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Or Hitler’s ridiculous attempt to jump at himself with a slave.

        In that situation, it is not clear why the German military experts did not lower him to the ground, and did not provide data that even with a favorable situation with our unpreparedness for war, the will to resist is still the same and our distances will immediately put an end to all their dreams of blitzkrieg.
        However, Hitler would hardly have listened to the military - he had already decided everything for himself even earlier.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 14 December 2019 03: 30 New
          -3
          Quote: ccsr
          A lightning war in non-nuclear time is possible only with a weak or cowardly adversary

          Quote: ccsr
          all the same, the will to resist and our distances will immediately put an end to all their dreams of blitzkrieg.

          Blitzkrieg was successful, the Red Army was destroyed in border battles. But this Soviet Red Army was not the last.
          Just in this sense, and not in the delusional pushing of the border from Leningrad, the Winter War was extremely useful. She informed Comrade Stalin that the Red Army was a very, very rotten structure. Comrade Stalin, of course, out of habit shot a couple of pest divisions, but with a sniff, he realized that this would not help. So the war with Germany will not be small or victorious. As a result, the Germans, head and shoulders surpassing the Red Army, were not ready for a total war of attrition, and the leadership of the USSR, with all its shortcomings, knew that only in such a war could it have a chance.
          Well, Hitler, of course, blundered. Faced with the fact that the blitzkrieg of the 41st for some reason did not lead to victory, he did not switch to total war mode, but tried to repeat the blitzkrieg in the 42nd. The turn to total war took place only in the 43rd, when it was already late (in the 42nd, it was most likely too late, but it could have gone bad for the USSR. The Wehrmacht nevertheless broke through to the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line for a short time).
          1. svp67
            svp67 14 December 2019 04: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: Octopus
            Blitzkrieg was successful

            An interesting statement. how can it be successful that did not lead to victory? The fact that the "blitzkrieg" failed the Germans already began to understand in August. It did not correctly calculate the mobilization capabilities of the Red Army
            Quote: Octopus
            The Red Army was destroyed in border battles.

            If you would say "personnel army", I would not agree either, since the personnel units were still active in the battle for Moscow, and here the whole Red Army ... that the units located in the Urals, the Caucasus, Siberia and the Far East then did they die?
            Quote: Octopus
            Faced with the fact that the blitzkrieg of the 41st for some reason did not lead to victory

            Well, you are contradicting yourself, but how is this your statement:
            Quote: Octopus
            Blitzkrieg was successful
            ?
            Quote: Octopus
            but tried to repeat the blitzkrieg in the 42nd.

            There are no operations carried out by the Wehrmacht in 42 and 43 this is no longer a “blitzkrieg”, it is an attempt at one blow and in one direction to force the enemy to make peace. To repeat the “blitzkrieg”, that is, to carry out operations in all directions, in these years Germany no longer had the strength
            Quote: Octopus
            The turn to total war occurred only in the 43rd,

            Again did not guess. The transition to total war is 44 years
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 14 December 2019 04: 17 New
              -3
              Quote: svp67
              how is this your statement

              When planning Barbarossa, it was believed that the destruction of a regular army = victory. It was considered in Germany, but not in the USSR. So the blitzkrieg was successful - achieved its goal - but did not lead to victory. Political error at the planning stage.
              Quote: svp67
              carried out by the Wehrmacht in 42 and 43 it is no longer a “blitzkrieg”

              Blau partly yes, the Citadel is gone. Indeed, there has been some confusion.
              Quote: svp67
              The transition to total war is 44 years

              This is not an instant event. The results are yes, visible only in the 44th.
              1. svp67
                svp67 14 December 2019 04: 31 New
                +3
                Quote: Octopus
                When planning Barbarossa, it was believed that the destruction of a regular army = victory.

                No. Gelder writes in his memoirs that they also planned to destroy the divisions created by mobilization, but did not correctly calculate both their number and the speed of their appearance on the front line.
                Quote: Octopus
                Political error at the planning stage.

                The wrong assessment of the mobilization capabilities of the enemy is a military miscalculation
                Quote: Octopus
                This is not an instant event. The results are yes, visible only in the 44th.

                Total war is the transfer of the economy and the whole country to it, and it happened precisely in the year 44, all the rest is measures not to bring to it
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 14 December 2019 12: 14 New
                  0
                  In fact, we agree. The debate over interpretations, where is the political miscalculation, where is the military, what can be considered success, what cannot, at what point did the course on the total war that Todt laid down become a paradigm shift.

                  These are quite subjective things. So I will not refute you. Depressed plus.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 14 December 2019 19: 01 New
            +4
            Quote: Octopus
            Blitzkrieg was successful, the Red Army was destroyed in border battles. But this Soviet Red Army was not the last.

            It’s complete nonsense, because it was precisely the “destroyed Red Army” that was able to knock out the Wehrmacht’s most combat-ready troops just in the first year of the war, and already in the summer of 1942 the German military leaders panicked to Hitler that the incoming replenishment did not know how to fight and could not organize a further successful German offensive parts. And Stalingrad really showed that the Germans did not have the troops that started the war - they were mostly destroyed thanks to the persistence of our troops.
            Quote: Octopus
            Comrade Stalin, of course, out of habit shot a couple of pest divisions,

            Are you friends with your head? A couple of divisions are almost 28 thousand people, so either do not lie, or present documents containing data on military court cases, as a result of which such sentences were passed.
            Otherwise, you will be considered a crook and a racket.
            Quote: Octopus
            Well, Hitler, of course, blundered. Faced with the fact that the blitzkrieg of the 41st for some reason did not lead to victory, he did not switch to total war mode, but tried to repeat the blitzkrieg in the 42nd.

            Nonsense, because Hitler blundered when he approved the Barbarossa directive, because it was initially unrealizable, although due to an incorrect assessment of the power of the Red Army and the military potential of the USSR.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 14 December 2019 21: 15 New
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              already in the summer of 1942, German military leaders reported to Hitler in panic

              By German superiors in a panic you mean Manstein in the south. I wrote the same thing, but in different expressions. Barbarossa was designed for 5 months. At the same time, the German did not have any understanding of how to fight after 3 months, in October, if he was not lucky with the weather (and not lucky). In the 42nd they tried to repeat, essentially, changing nothing except the objectives of the offensive, not realizing that this number was won back.
              Quote: ccsr
              Stalingrad really showed that the Germans do not have those troops that started the war

              Stalingrad really showed that there is a limit to everything. Especially the military valor of the Romanians.
              And yes, you are right, the most successful company is trooping troops, especially infantry. Without a system of permanent mobilization, a long-term war will not work. There was no such system in Reich of the 41st year, and by the end of the war a full fakap was created.
              Quote: ccsr
              either do not lie, or present documents containing data on cases of military courts

              I am not going to have a discussion about the phrase that has been screwed up to the occasion. More than 28 thousand people moved from the Tymoshenko department to the Beria department in 40-41 or less, how many of them received VMN - I'm not interested. Once I found out how many future commanders of the WWII fronts felt the interest of the friends of the people, but now I have no time to look.
              Quote: ccsr
              you will be considered a rogue and a racket.

              Be so kind.
              Quote: ccsr
              it was initially unrealizable

              Hundreds of slaughterhouses are torn on this subject. In a nutshell - Altpositives for the Reich are much easier to write than for the USSR.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 15 December 2019 10: 39 New
                +2
                Quote: Octopus
                At the same time, the German did not have any understanding of how to fight after 3 months, in October, if he was not lucky with the weather (and not lucky).

                This proves that the Barbarossa plan was absolutely unrealizable because of the initial mistakes made in calculating the advance of German troops and without taking into account our territory and climate.
                Quote: Octopus
                More than 28 thousand people moved from the Tymoshenko department to the Beria department in 40-41 or less, how many of them received VMN - I'm not interested.

                Then do not make unfounded statements. By the way, shootings of deserters by the verdict of a military tribunal were claimed by military leaders, not NKVD officers.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 15 December 2019 10: 46 New
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Then do not make unfounded statements

                  You’re dropping me, I’ll find someone else, except Rokossovsky, Meretskov who didn’t have time, or even managed to shoot. Remember, the list was much longer. Zhukov, by the way, is part of it.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 15 December 2019 17: 24 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Octopus
                    except Rokossovsky, Meretskov did not have time, or even managed to shoot. Remember, the list was much longer. Zhukov, by the way, is part of it.

                    Here at the forum the issue of pre-war repression against the commanders of the Red Army has been discussed several times, so if you wish, you can easily find materials that detail the data on all repressed and the percentage of their number to the entire command structure of the army. And if you study everything carefully, you may come to the conclusion that the hysteria about the repressions in the army is not true, if only because some of the repressed were rehabilitated and returned to the army as Rokossovsky, and some were simply dismissed due to various misconducts , including crimes.
          3. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 19: 02 New
            +1
            Quote: Octopus
            Blitzkrieg was successful, the Red Army was destroyed in border battles. But this Soviet Red Army was not the last.

            Blitzkrieg failed. Red Army was not destroyed, she suffered heavy losses, but retreating, restrained the enemy. It became clear to German generals that they had lost the war in August. 1941 year.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 14 December 2019 20: 50 New
              +1
              Quote: Alexander Green
              It became clear to German generals that they had lost the war in August. 1941 year.

              In August, it became clear to German generals that a border battle won did not lead to a war gain. In addition, all these stories, to whom when it became clear, appeared much later.
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 14 December 2019 21: 02 New
                -1
                Quote: Alexander Green
                It became clear to German generals that they had lost the war in August. 1941 year.

                Quote: Octopus
                In August, it became clear to German generals that a border battle won did not lead to a war gain.

                What's in the forehead, what's on the forehead.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 14 December 2019 23: 02 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  lost the war

                  Quote: Octopus
                  a border battle won does not win a war.

                  These are two statements that are different in meaning. Read carefully, it is not so difficult.
  • victor50
    victor50 13 December 2019 21: 06 New
    0
    But couldn’t it be possible to achieve the same result, perhaps with less losses, by delivering the main blows in Karelia, where, according to the author, there was no serious defense? This is a question and nothing more.
  • vasev
    vasev 13 December 2019 21: 34 New
    -2
    "Moscow was not going to conquer Finland. The main task was to persuade the unreasonable Finns."

    ... on the second day of the war, a puppet Teriok government was created on the territory of the USSR, led by the Finnish communist Otto Kuusinen. On December 2, the Soviet government signed a mutual assistance agreement with the Kuusinen government and, according to Ryti, refused any contacts with the Finnish legal government led by Risto Ryti.https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Finnish war_ (1939 -1940)


    Take us, Suomi is a beauty
    Music: br. Pokrass Words: A. D'Actil

    Pine tree on the slopes curls
    Frontier mean outlook.
    Take us, Suomi is a beauty
    In a necklace of transparent lakes!

    Tanks are breaking wide openings,
    Airplanes circling in the clouds
    Low sun of autumn
    Lights the bayonet lights.

    We used to fraternize with victories
    And again we carry in battle
    On the roads paved with grandfathers
    Red star glory.

    A lot of lies over the years
    To confuse the Finnish people.
    Open now trustingly to us
    Halves of the wide gate!

    Neither the jesters nor the fools scribblers
    Do not embarrass your hearts anymore.
    Your homeland was taken more than once -
    We come to return it.

    We come to help you deal
    To pay with interest for shame.
    Take us, Suomi is a beauty
    In a necklace of transparent lakes!
  • LeonidL
    LeonidL 14 December 2019 05: 23 New
    0
    Great article. And what exactly is expected from the BBC and the like? Praise for Soviet policy and the victories of the Red Army? Naive!
  • Tests
    Tests 14 December 2019 11: 42 New
    +2
    Octopus, dear, here you have pleased me, so pleased!
    “Comrade Stalin, of course, out of habit shot a couple of pest divisions,” as he read and imagined that Stalin had developed the habit of shooting “pests” for some time, not just one, but divisions. But there is no information for how long, where, when, and from which weapon Joseph Vissarionovich applied the highest measure of social protection to “pests”? ... The RKKA infantry division in the state of 1939, I tell you a secret, was a little more than 10 a man ... Solzhenitsyn peeed, and the Soviet people read about the thousands of Red Army men who, returning from Finnish captivity, went straight to the logging gulag, lied like a Nobel laureate, they seemed to be shot, standing shoulder to shoulder next to Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and Beria.
    "To the line Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan, the Wehrmacht still erupted for a short time." Octopus, dear, are you talking about air raids? Well then, you can safely write that in August 1941 the Red Army broke through briefly to Berlin. Otherwise, enlighten, please, when the Germans took Arkhangelsk, Gorky, Saransk, Penza, Saratov, Astrakhan! Yes, Moscow in a straight line is located 400 km west of Nizhny Novgorod (Gorky), the Germans also took it ?!
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 14 December 2019 12: 07 New
      -1
      Quote: Tests
      no information for what time, where, when and from what weapon

      Comrade Stalin approached this matter with humor and imagination. I won’t remember everything.
      Quote: Tests
      You are about air raids

      During the Blau, the Germans washed their boots in the Volga if you are not in the know. I said they broke through to the line, and did not occupy the line along the entire length.
  • Tests
    Tests 14 December 2019 20: 53 New
    +1
    "During the Blau, the Germans washed their boots in the Volga, if you aren’t in the know. I said they broke through to the line, and did not occupy the line over the entire length." Octopus, dear, your knowledge of geography is beginning to scare me.
    The fact that the Germans were in Stalingrad - of course I know. However, since my happy Soviet school childhood I remember that in Russia there is wealth - the salt lake Elton. Elton is located 150 km east of Stalingrad (Volgograd), and the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line is located east of Lake Elton. Geography is a very accurate science ... I believe that individual Abwehr morsels could be on the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line and much east, I know that Nazi Germany reconnaissance aircraft flew in 1941-45 and further east, and their submarines in Kara hosted the sea.
    BUT on the eastern shore of the Volga there were well-fed infantrymen, sappers, artillerymen, tankmen and representatives of other military specialties, and Germans and Romanians, only in formation, only during the day, and only along clearly defined routes, only silently, without songs, under the escort of soldiers of the troops NKVD. Exiting the convoy while driving is an attempt to escape. When attempting to escape, the convoy shoots without warning of defeat. And it was - lawfully and fairly.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 14 December 2019 23: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: Tests
      BUT on the eastern bank of the Volga

      You, I see, wishes are even more radical than that of the Fuhrer. Traditionally it was believed that AA is Arkhangelsk-Belomorobalt-Ladoga-Volgobalt-Volga. There are options in the north, but there are no options for the left bank of the Volga.
  • Tests
    Tests 15 December 2019 00: 50 New
    +1
    An octopus, dear, writing this: “You, I see, have more radical wishes than the Führer’s.” - Don’t take it as hard work, quote my wishes, please.
    And yet, please explain by whom and when: "Traditionally, AA was considered to be Arkhangelsk-Belomorobalt-Ladoga-Volgobalt-Volga. There are options in the north, but there are no options for the left bank of the Volga." You please me more and more!
    From Arkhangelsk to the entrance to the BBK in Povenets, 340 km, Belomorsk was not in occupation, it had the temporary capital of the Karelian-Finnish SSR and the headquarters of the Karelian Front since September 1941 (the Belorussian BBK ends). From Belomorsk to Arkhangelsk - 270 km from west to east. From Povenets to Ladoga, who, when and how measured the line Arkhangelsk - Astrakhan? From Arkhangelsk to the confluence of Svir in Lake Ladoga - 600 km (the end of Volgobalt). If you remember the geography - 600 km is more than from Berlin to Copenhagen, to Warsaw, to Prague, to Amsterdam. Well, if we talk about Finland - 600 km is practically the width of the land territory of Finland in the widest place from east to west (without territorial waters). Someone famously measured the territory of the USSR - 600 km east or 600 km west - these, as they say in Odessa, are two big differences.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 15 December 2019 10: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Tests
      From Arkhangelsk to the entrance to the BBK in Povenets 340 km

      I already wrote that specific lines in the north are irrelevant. You tell me about the idea of ​​moving the Volga in the region of Stalingrad. Who told you this?
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 15 December 2019 16: 38 New
    +1
    "it would be logical to deliver the main blow in Karelia" ////
    ----
    They tried to do it. But in the forests, two personnel divisions irrevocably perished (they were surrounded and destroyed in parts).
    After this, the breakthrough attempts in Karelia stopped. And broke through the Isthmus.
  • Tests
    Tests 15 December 2019 18: 42 New
    +1
    Octopus, dear, is your native language Russian? Is Russia or the USSR a native country for you?
    You famously measure distances on maps - 300 km to the east or 300 km to the west. For you: "the specific frontiers in the north are irrelevant." Interestingly, we are talking about the war of the USSR and Finland, and the borders in the north are not relevant ... And you have not tried to offer visitors to the site from Israel to change the territory of their state according to your method: move the eastern border of their country 300 km to the west. Something tells me that the citizens of Israel will accuse you of all sins and will be right by 202% ...
    About the Germans and Romanians on the eastern bank of the Volga I, it seems to me, maybe I'm wrong, I wrote very clearly and clearly. If it is not clear and understandable, then I will answer your question: "Tell me about the idea of ​​moving the Volga in the Stalingrad region. Who told you this?" My youngest daughter has a godmother from the glorious family of pilots of Arkhangelsk - Anisimov, who have been living in the villages Pustosh, Kavkola, Ostrov for more than 200 years. Many times, the godfather’s grandfather escorted Germans and Romanians across the ice to the eastern shore of the Volga, serving in the NKVD troops to protect the rear of the Stalingrad Front. He told about this. And after the war, he guarded the camp with captured Magyars for several more years. After all, the Magyars, like the Finns in Povenets, “returned theirs” near Voronezh.
    Yes, on the night of September 14-15, 1942, the Germans on rafts attempted to cross the Volga with forces to the battalion, with the task of capturing the berths on the east bank and the Paromnaya station. The rifle companies of the 56th NKVD regiment that guarded the crossing and station , the landing was sent to feed the fish.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 15 December 2019 19: 25 New
      0
      The grandfather from the NKVD is a good thing, but
      Quote: Tests
      line Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan is located east of Lake Elton

      Is this the story that the grandfather from the NKVD told you? You have the line AA there - is it direct, or what?
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 20 December 2019 12: 54 New
    0
    But the victory, in many respects, was pyrrhic: huge losses of people, loss of prestige and image, and, most importantly, Hitler, who carefully watched the war, realized that it was possible and necessary to attack the inept and weak USSR .. Than to show SUCH, it would be better not fight...

    1. The victory is real and very necessary. By creating an alternative government for Finland, the Soviet leadership reminded the Finnish leaders "If you don’t want, we’ll find someone to agree with, but then you won’t be there." Moreover, Finland used to be part of the Russian Empire.
    2. Hitler was convinced that the USSR (Russia) was weak and should die far before the war with Finland. The entire German and world military elite beat the ass sure after the First World War. So no image of the USSR could be lost in this war because there was nowhere to fall below the image of tsarist Russia.
    3. A large number of Soviet losses in this war on the basis of the census in 1959 and includes people who did not participate in the war, but died in this period. War losses irretrievable losses of 85 thousand.
    Finnish irretrievable losses are 4 times less, just because they capitulated on time. In fact, the entire Finnish army of 300 thousand is an irretrievable military loss since it surrendered.
  • Robertocalos
    Robertocalos 21 December 2019 15: 21 New
    +1
    The Kuusinen government refutes the theory of "living space", Comrade Stalin wanted the Karelo Finnish Republic and made it in advance. And the fate of the Baltic states also shows the vector of movement to the west.
    Were it not for the Northern War, there would not have been a Great Patriotic War. Hitler was afraid of the Soviets and did the right thing. But in fact, he decided that he would win. Everyone knows the result. And yes, we piled on the finals. The question is at what cost and what are the consequences.
  • IL-64
    IL-64 27 February 2020 07: 50 New
    0
    Recently, in one of the videos posted on VO, it was said about the loss of the Red Army of 500 thousand. How so?