Finland's Resolve: Causes and Consequences of the Soviet-Finnish War

Finland's losses in the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940: a pulp mill in Enso (Svetogorsk)

В stories The Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940, or the "Winter War", in my opinion, always leaves behind the scenes an important question that must be formulated as follows: why did Finland decide to fight at all?

No matter how much I read all the literature on the Finnish war, nowhere did I find the appropriate question posed and, of course, the answer to it. Finland's decision to enter the war (let's leave the issue of the incident at the border as insignificant in this context aside) in the USSR seems to be somehow unfounded and almost spontaneous. Well, or even stupid.

Firstly, one can often find bewilderment as to why the Finnish side did not like the exchange of territories proposed by the Soviet side at the Moscow talks in October-November 1939. For the site on the Karelian Isthmus, a twice as large (5529 sq. Km) territory in Eastern Karelia was offered. Why did they refuse? However, it is strange that very few people thought that the Finns could have good reasons to hold on to the Karelian Isthmus.

Secondly, due to the sharp military superiority of the USSR over Finland in all respects, the war in the strategic sense was initially a losing one for Finland. It was possible to restrain the Soviet onslaught, repel one, two or even three offensives, and then all the same, the Finnish troops would be crushed by the numerical and fire superiority of the Red Army. The reference to the fact that you need to hold out for six months, and then help from the West (that is, Great Britain and France) will come was more a means of complacency than a real calculation.

Nevertheless, the decision to fight was made, despite the fact that it was, in essence, a suicidal decision. Why? Or in a more detailed form: why the Finns were not so happy with the option with the cession of territories?

Let them pay in blood

The Moscow talks "on specific political issues" in mid-October - early November 1939 took place in a completely definite political context, which directly and directly influenced the position of the Finnish side.

The maximum variant of Finland's proposed exchange of territories, which can be seen on the map of the Finnish Democratic Republic of 1939, cut off almost the entire Mannerheim Line from Finland, except for its easternmost part, adjacent to Lake Suvanto-Järvi and Lake Ladoga. In this case, the defensive line was deprived of all defensive significance.

Part of the 1939 map of the Finnish Democratic Republic; dotted line - old border, purple line - proposed new border

Scheme "Mannerheim Lines"

Almost a year before the Moscow negotiations, there was already an example when the country gave up territory with defensive lines. In early October 1938, Czechoslovakia gave Germany the Sudetenland, in which a defensive line had been built since 1936. By September 1938, 264 structures were built (20% of the planned) and more than 10 thousand firing points (70% of the planned). All this went to the Germans and in December 1938 Czechoslovakia pledged not to have fortifications on the border with Germany. Only five months passed after the surrender of the fortifications, and on March 14, 1939, Slovakia separated, and on March 15, 1939, the President of Czechoslovakia, Emil Hacha, agreed to the abolition of Czechoslovakia and the creation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, occupied by German troops (Hakha became president of this protectorate under the Reich Protector Constantin von Neurath ).

For the Finnish representatives invited to Moscow on October 5, 1939, these were the freshest events, a maximum of a year ago. Of course, as soon as they saw the proposal for the exchange of territories, which provided for the surrender of the defensive line, they drew a parallel between their situation and that of Czechoslovakia. Who could guarantee them then that if they agreed, then in six months or a year in Helsinki the Red Army would not have hung red flags?

It may be objected that they were Germans, and then - the Soviet Union. But we must remember that the Finnish representatives came to Moscow for negotiations "on specific political issues", it was on October 5, 1939, just 35 days after the start of the war between Germany and Poland and only 18 days after the Red Army entered Poland, which was September 17, 1939.

Of course, in Helsinki, a note from the USSR People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs Molotov was read to Polish Ambassador Grzybowski of September 17, 1939, since it was presented to a number of embassies, including the Embassy of Finland in the USSR, with an accompanying note. How did they view it? I think it was like the partition of Poland between Germany and the USSR, which looked more than impressive from Helsinki. The Finnish government knew about what was happening in general terms, from the newspapers and the messages of its diplomats, they clearly did not know the background of the events. The war broke out, the Germans defeated the Poles, the Polish government fled, then Soviet troops entered the country “to take the life and property of the population under their protection,” as written in the note to the Polish ambassador. Two weeks have passed, Finnish representatives are invited to Moscow and offered to share the territory with a defensive line on it.

We add to this that right during the negotiations in Moscow, the Red Army appeared in the Baltic states: on October 18, 1939 in Estonia, on October 29 - in Latvia, in November - in Lithuania.

I can invite anyone to put themselves in the shoes of Finnish leaders: President of Finland Kyjosti Kallio, Prime Minister Aimo Kajander, or even the head of the Finnish Defense Council, Field Marshal Karl Mannerheim, under the conditions described above. And, accordingly, the question: what assessment of the situation would you give and what decision would you take? Just let's go without afterthought.

In my opinion, the situation for the Finnish side looked quite unambiguous: the Moscow talks are preparations for the annexation of Finland, and if Moscow’s terms are accepted, then all of Finland will soon become a Soviet protectorate, a Soviet republic, or whatever they call it. In these conditions, the decision was made to fight, despite the fact that there was generally no chance of victory. The motive was simple: if the Russians want Finland, let them pay in blood.

It was a difficult decision, which the Finns did not come to at once. They tried to bargain and get off with small territorial concessions that did not affect the Mannerheim Line. But they didn't succeed.

Diagram showing the auction at the Moscow negotiations in 1939

Less 11% of the economy

Much has been written about the results of the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940, mainly in the context of the losses incurred and the discussion of the issue of the combat capability of the Red Army. All this is very interesting, however, the economic results of the war for Finland, which suffered significant losses not only in the territory, but also in what was on it, remained almost without consideration.

It is interesting to note that very little attention is paid to this moment even in Western works, although, in my opinion, the economic results of the war turned out to be very important, and this will be discussed separately. More detailed information was sought in some Finnish publications during the war, as well as in German documents. In the fund of the Reichsministry of the German economy in the RGVA there is a separate reprint of the German newspaper Die chemische Industrie, June 1941, dedicated to the review of the Finnish chemical industry, to which an introduction was attached to the general state of the Finnish economy after the Soviet-Finnish war (RGVA, f. 1458, op. 8, d. 4). A narrow profile edition that is now difficult to find.

So, as a result of the war, Finland lost 35 thousand square meters. km of territory from which 484 thousand refugees were evacuated (12,9% of the total population of 3,7 million people), including 92 thousand urban residents, mainly from Viipuri (Vyborg). They were relocated to the central part of the country, their establishment took a lot of time and money and ended only in the 1950s. Refugees, who were Finnish-speaking Karelians, mostly Orthodox, were not well received everywhere, especially in Lutheran Finnish regions.

The main sectors of the Finnish economy have lost 10 to 14% of their capacity. Out of 4422 enterprises, 3911 remained, out of 1110 thousand hp. power plants remained 983 thousand hp, and hydroelectric power plants were mainly lost. Electricity production decreased by 789 million kWh, or 25% (pre-war level - 3110 million kWh). Industrial production fell from 21 to 18,7 billion marks, or 11%.

The hydroelectric power station under construction in Enso (Svetogorsk), which the USSR inherited as a trophy; rebuilt and reconstructed and now in service

Finland's foreign trade fell sharply. Exports fell from 7,7 billion Finnish marks in 1939 to 2,8 billion in 1940, imports from 7,5 billion in 1939 to 5,1 billion Finnish marks in 1940. For an economy dependent on the import of a whole list of important products, this was a severe blow.

In the publications, the losses are somewhat specified. On the territory ceded to the USSR, 70 large sawmills and 11% of Finland's forest reserves, 18 paper mills, 4 plywood mills and the only factory for the production of artificial silk remained.

In addition, the port of Viipuri was lost, which before the war handled up to 300 thousand tons of imported cargo, or 33% of the import traffic (Finnland von Krieg zu Krieg. Dresden, "Franz Müller Verlag", 1943, S. 19-23).

Viipuri port (Vyborg) before the war

Bread has become noticeably less

Agriculture was hit hardest. There are not many convenient arable land in Finland at all, and the Karelian Isthmus was a very important agricultural region, accounting for 13% of hay production, 12% of rye production and 11% of wheat and potato production.

I was able to track down an excellent Finnish work with agricultural statistics (Pentti V. Maataloustuotanto Suomessa 1860-1960. Suomen pankin taloustieteellinen tutkimuslaitos. Helsinki, 1965).

Agricultural production at comparable prices in 1926 was 1939 billion Finnish marks in 6,4, and in 1940 it decreased to 4,9 billion (in 1941 - 4,6 billion, in 1942 - 4,3 billion, 1943 year - 5,1 billion, in 1944 - 5,6 billion, in 1945 - 5 billion). The pre-war level was surpassed in 1959.

Production of major crops:
Rye - 198,3 thousand tons in 1939, 152,3 thousand tons in 1940.
Wheat - 155,3 thousand tons in 1939, 103,7 thousand tons in 1940.
Potatoes - 495 thousand tons in 1939, 509 thousand tons in 1940.

In 1938, Finland met its own needs for rye and potatoes, and the share of imported products in consumption was 17%. After the war and the loss of the agricultural area, the share of consumption not covered by its own production increased to 28%. At the beginning of 1940, rationing of food distribution to the population was introduced in Finland and price caps were set. However, this was only the beginning of great food difficulties, since Finland entered the war with the USSR in 1941, not only with reduced food production, but also with two bad harvests in a row, so that in 1941, with a normal need for bread, 198 kg per capita were harvested only 103 kg, and 327 kg of potatoes were harvested per capita with a requirement of 140 kg. Finnish researcher Seppo Jurkinen calculated that the total consumption of potatoes, wheat, rye and barley in 1939 was 1926 thousand tons, or 525 kg per capita. In 1941, the harvest amounted to 1222 thousand tons, of which 291 thousand tons were reserved for the seed fund. The receipt amounted to 931 thousand tons, or 252 kg per capita. But if you give enough food to the army, peasants, workers and refugees (1,4 million people - 735 thousand tons), then the remaining 2,4 million people will only have 196 thousand tons from the 1941 harvest, or 82 kg per capita per year. , 15,6% of the normal annual requirement. This is the threat of severe hunger.

How the Germans pulled Finland to their side

Thus, the Soviet-Finnish war plunged Finland into a severe economic crisis. Worst of all, Finland was effectively deprived of external supplies of essential imports, from food to coal and oil products. Germany, with the outbreak of war with Poland, in September 1939, blocked the Baltic Sea, and the traditional trade of Finland, primarily with Great Britain, was virtually destroyed.

Only the port of Liinahamari, in the north of the country, with one pier, remained free for navigation.

Liinahamari port. Now imagine that transports are coming here, in which there are about a million tons of coal, 200-300 thousand tons of grain, a corps of 50 thousand people with the ammunition, fuel, food and equipment they need, and so on. The "window" was too narrow for such a traffic

Such a port could not meet all the transport needs of the Finnish economy. For the same reason, all the plans of Great Britain and France to provide Finland with assistance in the war with the USSR, in particular, the French plans to land a corps of 50 thousand people crashed because of the impossibility of delivering troops and supplies. They not only had to be unloaded at the port, but also transported across the whole of Finland from north to south.

The main grain exporters in the Baltic, Poland and the Baltics, were under the control of either Germany or the USSR. Sweden and Denmark, with which there was still shipping, themselves needed to import food. Sweden cut off food supplies to Finland in the fall of 1940. Denmark and Norway were occupied by the Germans in April 1940.

British coal fell off, which, according to the Finnish-British trade agreement of 1933, accounted for 75% of coal imports and 60% of coke imports. In 1938, Finland imported 1,5 million tons of coal, including 1,1 million tons from Great Britain, 0,25 million tons from Poland and 0,1 million tons from Germany; also imported 248 thousand tons of coke, including 155 thousand tons from Great Britain, 37 thousand tons from Germany and 30 thousand tons from Belgium (RGVA, f. 1458, op. 8, d. 33, l. 3).

The economic situation in Finland after the Soviet-Finnish war made it virtually dependent on Germany. Finland could not get the necessary resources from anyone else, since there was no trade with the USSR, and trade with Britain ceased. Therefore, Finnish companies began to agree on the supply of coal from Germany and from Poland, which had just been occupied by the Germans, already in September-October 1939.

Then the Soviet-Finnish war began, and the Germans, who adhered to the anti-Finnish position, cut off everything they could to Finland. Finland had to endure the winter of 1939/40 with a lack of food and fuel. But after the end of the war, Germany pulled the rope by the explicit order of the existing dependence of Finland on Germany and thus, from the summer of 1940, pulled it over to its side.

So the Soviet-Finnish war, if we consider it from the military-economic point of view, turned out to be extremely unsuccessful for the USSR and catastrophic in its consequences. In fact, the USSR, firstly, made Finland its enemy, and, secondly, the economic consequences of the war made it dependent on Germany and pushed the Finns to the German side. Finland before the war was oriented towards Great Britain, not Germany. It was necessary not to demand territories from the Finns, but, on the contrary, to pull to their side, offering them bread and coal in abundance. Coal, perhaps, was far from being transported to Finland from Donbass, but the mines of the Pechersk coal basin were already under construction and the Kotlas-Vorkuta railway was under construction.

Finland, neutral or on the side of the USSR, would have made the blockade of Leningrad impossible.

Comments

[Pessimist22]

If yes, if only ...

[BDRM 667]

Quote: Pessimist22

If yes, if only ...

Yes, at least based on this -

So the Soviet-Finnish war, if we consider it from the military-economic point of view, turned out to be extremely unsuccessful for the USSR and catastrophic in its consequences. In fact, the USSR, firstly, made Finland his enemy

And what happened to the long (decades) confrontation between Finland and the USSR, expressed in a series of "micro wars", starting from the independence of Finland in 1918?

Here's something, but the Finns loved to bother their neighbor , perhaps even more often and more intensively than the Polish pans ...

[Basil50]

You're right. This is how they try to explain a lot today.
The author should have taken an interest in how the principality of Finland was actually created and especially inquired why this principality and lands were slaughtered at the expense of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE and special conditions were prescribed.
For the uninitiated, the Finns in the twentieth century attacked the SOVIET UNION FOUR times without declaring war, and this is in addition to monthly provocations on the land border, but you can also recall piracy in the Baltic Sea and in the waters of the Arctic Ocean.
In 1939, the Finns carried out a full mobilization since spring, in addition, the Finns performed a miracle, they managed to put * under arms * a little less than SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND (600000) people. In Europe, there was already WWII, and in Finland, the French-British TOGETHER with the Germans armed the Finns.
In 1940, the British-French planned the destruction of the Caucasian * oil fields * and, in parallel, the bombing of LENINGRAD from the north. That is why so many airfields have been built in Finland, almost more than Finnish aircraft. The Germans, having seized France, gloatingly announced these plans.

[Octopus]

Quote: Vasily50

why this principality and lands were slaughtered at the expense of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE and special conditions were prescribed.

Khrushchev is to blame for everything.

Quote: Vasily50

In 1940, the British-French planned the destruction of the Caucasian * oil fields * and, in parallel, the bombing of LENINGRAD from the north

They planned a lot. To no avail.

Quote: Vasily50

For the uninitiated, the Finns in the twentieth century attacked the SOVIET UNION FOUR times without declaring war

)))
For the uninitiated: THE SOVIET UNION appeared on the map in 1924. Finland never attacked him, both times - in 1939 and 1941 - the USSR attacked itself. The most honorable Soviet historiography in the world proposes to consider as an attack in the first case - the mining incident, which was declared by the League of Nations as a Soviet provocation, in the second case - the actions of German forces stationed in Finland, primarily mine laying, and the mine laying investigation was carried out by the Soviet side so quickly that it began bombing Finland at 6 am on June 22.

As for the first two ATTACKS without a declaration of war, the side was not the USSR, but the RSFSR. In the first case, Soviet historians, as a rule, overlook Comrade Manner (by the way, the future enemy of the people SUDDENLY), who slaughtered the bourgeoisie in southern Finland since January 18, completely, completely independently of the Petrograd Soviet, and secondly, that the events of 21-22 both the parties officially were considered border incidents with the participation of private individuals, which was fixed by the Moscow Treaty of 1922.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Octopus

Finland never attacked him, both times - in 1939 and 1941 - the USSR attacked itself.

In 1939, yes. But in 1941, Finland was the first to open hostilities - first by providing its naval and air bases for German forces, and then by committing a direct act of aggression - laying a mine in Soviet waters from Finnish submarines. And this was done before the declaration of war and before our raid.
I wonder how the US would have reacted. if Japanese planes had planted mines at bases on the West Coast, and then flew to Mexico to refuel? Would Japanese torpedo boats and minesaghs and Mexican submarines leave Mexican bases for American communications?

Quote: Octopus

Moreover, the investigation of mine laying was carried out by the Soviet side so quickly that it began bombing Finland at 6 am on June 22.

And what - did the German planes - mine planners have other options? Their performance characteristics were well known to us from the purchased samples, the combat radius for the round-trip flight was clearly not enough - that means they went to refuel. And where could they go? To Sweden?
Plus, radio intelligence worked, reporting on the concentration of German cars at Finnish airfields. Although in real life on 22.06.1941/806/1 in Finland only part of KGr.806 was permanently based (more precisely, XNUMX./XNUMX), the rest were "stray".

[Octopus]

Quote: Alexey RA

having committed a direct act of aggression - laying a mine in Soviet waters from Finnish submarines

As far as I remember the original source of these productions, a good Finnish person writes about him on the basis that he Have not found logbook of one of the submarines.

Quote: Alexey RA

Their performance characteristics were well known to us from the purchased samples, the combat radius for the round-trip flight was clearly not enough - that means they went to refuel. And where could they go? To Sweden?

You know very well that at dawn on June 22, when Soviet planes were taking off from bases in the Baltic States, all these considerations were not known, whether it was true or not.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Octopus

You know very well that at dawn on June 22, when Soviet planes were taking off from bases in the Baltic States, all these considerations were not known, whether it was true or not.

And exactly on June 22? Not June 25? Because

Do not raid on the territory of Finland and Romania until special instructions.

© Directive No. 2 of 22.06.1941
Documentary confirmation of the use of Finnish airfields by the Germans was received on 23.06.1941.
And in general, what are we talking about if Finland on June 22.06.1941, XNUMX was named an ally of Germany. The Austrian artist won't let you lie.

German people! At this moment, the greatest military action in its length and volume that the world has ever seen. In alliance with the Finnish comrades, the fighters of the victor at Narvik by the Arctic Ocean stand. German divisions under the command of the conqueror of Norway 1 defend Finnish soil together with the Finnish heroes of the struggle for freedom under the command of their marshal.

[Octopus]

Quote: Alexey RA

Austrian artist won't let you lie

Will you now rely on Herr Hitler's statements on Finnish affairs?

Quote: Alexey RA

Not June 25? Because

On the 25th, the Soviet side decided to clarify the issue of Finnish neutrality by bombing Finnish cities. However, the incidents around the Aland Islands began on the 22nd.

Moreover, there is a well-grounded opinion that on June 25-30, the Red Air Force performed much better than one would expect from a country that did not think of anything like that.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Octopus

Will you now rely on Herr Hitler's statements on Finnish affairs?

And you propose not to take into account, as an insignificant fact, the statement of the leader of the state at war with the USSR that the country on whose territory the forces of this state are temporarily or permanently based is an ally?
Imagine the picture: Japanese planes mine the approaches to Frisco - and leave in the direction of Mexico. On the territory of Mexico, the broadcasting of Japanese aircraft radio stations is recorded. Tenno calls Mexico an ally in his speech. But the Yankees shrug their shoulders - neutrality must be respected.

Quote: Octopus

On the 25th, the Soviet side decided to clarify the issue of Finnish neutrality by bombing Finnish cities.

The main targets were assigned to airfields, ports and fuel storage, spare - factories and railways. But due to the traditionally low training of navigators, aggravated by incomplete, if not false intelligence, the strikes fell on residential buildings as well.

Quote: Octopus

However, the incidents around the Aland Islands began on the 22nd.

Around the Åland Islands, illegally militarized by the Finns?

[Octopus]

Quote: Alexey RA

Around the Åland Islands, illegally militarized by the Finns?

Yes, exactly them.

Quote: Alexey RA

But due to the traditionally low training of navigators, aggravated by incomplete or even false intelligence, the strikes fell on residential buildings as well.

What a shame. Someone recently told me that Harris destroyed military targets, but it did not work, it is very difficult to hit the anti-aircraft gun on the roof of a residential building without damaging the building, no one could know this in advance.

Quote: Alexey RA

But the Yankees shrug their shoulders - neutrality must be respected

It depends. If Mexico's entry into the war means the blockade of Los Angeles and the death of a million Americans, it’s not that they made a helpless gesture, but they would have paid extra. How Franco was paid extra at the request of the British in the same situation.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Octopus

What a shame. Someone recently told me that Harris destroyed military targets, but it did not work, it is very difficult to hit the anti-aircraft gun on the roof of a residential building without damaging the building, no one could know this in advance.

Still, there is a difference between the Red Army Air Force and the RAF.
For ours, the main goal is factories and transport infrastructure, and the bombs that hit residential buildings are collateral damage. As well as for the USAAF in the European theater of operations.
For the RAF, residential development is the primary focus. As well as for the USAAF in the Pacific theater.

Quote: Octopus

It depends. If Mexico's entry into the war means the blockade of Los Angeles and the death of a million Americans, it’s not just a helpless gesture, but it would be paid extra.

That is, the Yankees will swallow the basing of the enemy's air force close by at the rear base and the Pacific Fleet's ship repair facilities, mining approaches to bases, regular raids on cities, air reconnaissance, the actions of the enemy's small fleet on communications? The tradition is fresh, but hard to believe.

[Octopus]

Quote: Alexey RA

For ours, the main goal is factories and transport infrastructure, and the bombs that hit residential buildings are collateral damage.

Seriously? Have you ever heard of Molotov's bread bins?

Quote: Alexey RA

That is, the Yankees will swallow the enemy's air force basing at the side of the rear base

Yankees in reality paid to fascist Spain, which the German helped to fight off the Bolsheviks far from 1918, for neutrality. Similar to Turkey, by the way. With such introductions, your theory that Franco remained neutral, and the bloody Finns will attack under any conditions, seems defiant to me. Especially when you consider the fact that real the Finns in the real 41st year, after the USSR, frankly speaking, did not strengthen friendship, they did not attack the USSR.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Octopus

Seriously? Have you ever heard of Molotov's bread bins?

Just don't tell me that you don't remember - which target was assigned as the main target for the 3rd squadron of the 1st MTAP on November 30, 1939. And about the directive No. 1/1265 SS of the Air Force control of the KBF of 18.11.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX, which required inform each crew that it is prohibited to bombard the local population and bridges.
Specifically, Tokarev, after a failure with the main goal (the previous raid by Preobrazhensky frightened off the BRBO), chose the port of Helsinki as a backup target.

Moreover, SS directive No. 1/1265 was further aggravated by order No. 183285 of 03.12.1939 with a categorical prohibition on bombing cities and civilians and a ban on leaving for spare targets in case of impossibility of attacking the main one.

By the way, it is interesting - where did the RRAB, attributed to Tokarev during the bombing of Helsinki, come from, if his DB-3 was flown to work on the BRBO with a load of 500-kg and 100-kg bombs?

Quote: Octopus

Especially when you consider the fact that the real Finns in the real 41st year, after the USSR, frankly speaking, did not strengthen friendship, the USSR did not attack.

Yeah ... even before the war began, they gave the northern group of their armed forces under the German command (having established the border: everything to the south is subject to the Finns, to the north to the Germans), provided bases for backlashes and Kriegsmarines, sent their submarines to our communications.
Finland delayed entering the war for a simple reason - the Finns were waiting for when it would be possible to attack the USSR relatively painlessly: when the winner in the border battle would be clear and when the USSR would begin to transfer forces to the main theater of operations.

[Greg Miller]

The article is a bullshit. In 1939, the leadership of the USSR had no illusions about Finnish neutrality. It was clear that Finland, in the event of a "big war" against the USSR, would act as an aggressor against our state.

[Zug]

But actually what difference did they attack the USSR or the RSFSR in the years 18-20? It was the territory of a neighboring state and the Finns had no right to it ... Do not forget the kind arrogance of the Finns at the negotiations in Berlin, where they asked for themselves the Kola Peninsula ... The atrocities that they did in Karelia in 18-20 years are sufficient to call the Finns aggressors .Maybe you tell me. What did the Finns do in 19, near the city of Petrozavodsk near the Sulozhgorsk Heights? What have they forgotten there? They lost great Finland there? Well, at 39 they were reminded that not only they can walk on foreign land and kill as much as they want, but also we can shorten their boundaries

[Herman 4223]

Either you are a clown or a provocateur, the Soviet Union was formed in 1922. Whose maps did it appear on in 1924?
Finland attacked the USSR in 1939, Soviet soldiers died, their names were announced by the Sovinformburo.
Maybe it was done by drunken Finnish border guards or some other military from Finland, it doesn't matter. Finland answered for this in full and immediately.
In 1941 Finland provided its airfields for German aircraft, which from the first hours of the war bombed Soviet territory, and Finnish fighters covered them over the Baltic.
The Finnish fleet together with the German carried out mining operations in the Gulf of Finland.
Then 25 June. On the twenty-fifth, I emphasize, the Soviet Air Force began striking Finland.

[Octopus]

Quote: Herman 4223

the soviet union was formed in 1922

Sorry, please, really messed up. Thanks for the tip.

Does this change something about participation in the wars with Finland?

Quote: Herman 4223

Soviet soldiers died, their names were announced by the Sovinformburo.

How interesting.

1. Has Sovinformburo ever told the truth?
2. Was the extermination of Soviet soldiers once a difficulty for the native party?

Quote: Herman 4223

Finland answered for this in full and immediately.

She answered in full - is it 126 thousand Soviet irrevocability?

How many times have I seen how little the lives of grandfathers mean to Soviet people, but still amazes.

Quote: Herman 4223

In 1941 Finland provided its airfields for German aircraft, which bombed Soviet territory from the first hours of the war.

Seriously? And you did not lie a little bit, who bombed whom?

Quote: Herman 4223

The Finnish fleet together with the German carried out mining operations in the Gulf of Finland.

))
This is a well-known story. There are not so many materials on this issue now, but then they were not in general.

Quote: Herman 4223

Then 25 June. On the twenty-fifth, I emphasize, the Soviet Air Force began striking Finland.

They started on the morning of the 22nd. And on the 25th, massive (well, as far as the USSR could afford) raids on civilian objects began.

In general, the Soviet Union in the early days behaved phenomenally. It would seem that a problem has formed that should be solved, but no: the USSR is attacking two neutral countries.

[Gennady N]

"1. Has the Sovinformburo ever told the truth?
2. Was the extermination of Soviet soldiers once a difficulty for the native party? "
just iron arguments in the discussion

[Basil50]

the octopus surprised me very much with its broad knowledge.
It turns out that Khrushchev created the Finnish principality and slaughtered the vast territories of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE. Interestingly, under what number did he sit on the throne?
References to the * League of Nations * can only be viewed as a historical incident. A lot of things were asserted there, just like in today's EU.
By the way, the Finns are proud today that they dared to attack the SOVIET UNION FOUR times. It is worthwhile, at least occasionally, to read what the Finns write about themselves and what they are proud of.
The Finns are still making plans about * great Finland * all the way to the Urals and are not at all shy about it

[Octopus]

Quote: Vasily50

It turns out that Khrushchev

Quote: Vasily50

A lot of things were asserted there, just like in today's EU.

Nevertheless, the USSR alone claimed that in 39 someone attacked it, all other countries took the side of Finland.

Quote: Vasily50

FOUR times dared to attack the SOVIET UNION

These are not Finns, these are voices in your head. Real Finns are proud that 4 times (okay, 3) they defended their homeland from the USSR. In addition to them, only Turkey left the USSR's neighbors in 1924 alive and relatively unharmed by the Soviet regime.

Quote: Vasily50

The Finns are still making plans about * great Finland * all the way to the Urals and are not at all shy about it

To feed all these people at the expense of Finland?

I think there are people who dream about it, but they are hardly Finns.

[Zug]

I wonder why when Poland crossed over to its ready-made borders and attacked Ukraine. All countries as one were silent. Didn't they say anything? Didn't threaten them with fingers? Maybe you are not aware that a frenzied traffic of spies, saboteurs, scouts passed through the Finnish border? Do you think they were not caught or fired? In vain. And the Finnish authorities knew about this and indulged these passages. Or do you think the Mainil incident is a single phenomenon ... Naive ... There were dozens of them, shelling of border guards from the Finnish side. The prototype of agent 007 was soaked exactly when trying to cross the Karelo-Finnish border (I don’t remember my first name, last name) from there, with the connivance of the authorities, so many trash and scum climbed all 30 years. ? Historians digging archives for decades cannot determine who started, and it doesn't matter. By their actions in 20 years, the Finns themselves paved the way to a future war

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Zug

when trying to cross the Karelo-Finnish border (I don't remember first name, last name)

Reilly? So he, emnip, was not soaked. There, on the border.

[Zug]

Soaked when trying

[Sugar Honeyovich]

They soaked it in a staged way. Sham. But in reality - later, in Moscow.

[Octopus]

Quote: Zug

Poland crossed over to its ready-made borders and attacked Ukraine. All countries as one kept silent

And what does Poland have to do with it? And what, by the way, and who could have questions for Poland?

Quote: Zug

Maybe you are not aware that a frenzied traffic of spies, saboteurs, scouts passed through the Finnish border?

You see, the USSR through all the border was crossed by a frantic traffic of spies, saboteurs, scouts. Such is the country. Beria's spy, for example, made his way from Azerbaijan. Yes, Azerbaijan also had spies in the Politburo.

Quote: Zug

There were dozens of them, shelling of border guards from the Finnish side

Yes, hot Finnish guys. Just let me zhahnat across the USSR.

Quote: Zug

from there, with the connivance of the authorities, so many trash and scum climbed all 30 years

You see, the trash and the scum tend to love the imposing life. Staying on Soviet soil did not contribute to this at all, I assure you.

Quote: Zug

And Mainila? Historians digging archives for decades cannot determine who started

Generally speaking, no one but the Soviet people has any doubts about this.

Quote: Zug

.The Finns themselves paved the way for a future war with their actions in 20 years

You are absolutely right. Mannerheim, acting jointly in Yudenich, could strangle Soviet power in the bud. But I, unlike you, put all the blame on Yudenich and other lovers, one and indivisible. Mannerheim kept his country and his people, unlike the officers.

[Zug]

So the answer to the question is what the Finns were doing near Petrozavodsk in 1919. Why, at the negotiations in Berlin in 20, the Finns began to demand them the Kola Peninsula? And one more thing: Why did they kill Russian peasants in Porosozero, Olonets, and other villages in Eastern Karelia? Poor unfortunate Finns. By what right did they decide that they could walk on a foreign land and the land of those who gave them independence to kill? Regarding Mainil, you would have to shove through the Finnish archives, or at least historians that they are working there to read. For example, the Finns do not know who started it. You’re just probably offended that the king was nailed and your ancestors were not allowed to eat more French rolls and ride on the peasants' humps? fence red?
Yes, Mannerheim was lucky. Zhdanov wanted to hang him on the gallows on Lenin Square in Petrozavodsk. Stalin did not give him. For that Mannerheim had to lick him for it all that was hanging from Comrade Stalin

[Octopus]

Quote: Zug

what the Finns did near Petrozavodsk in 1919

Protected the Karelian-Finnish population from the red and white terror. Not protected, but someone was able to leave on time.

Quote: Zug

Porosozero, Olonets, and other villages in Eastern Karelia were Russian peasants killed?

With the emergence of new nation states, ethnic cleansing is almost inevitable. As for the Russian peasants, everyone killed them in those years, this is not something important. The Soviet government showed its desire to count the killed civilians by name only when they told about the crimes of the Finns and interventionists. In other cases, they were considered millions.

Quote: Zug

those who gave them independence to kill?

Independence is not given, but taken. As for the Petrosovet, he gave independence in his own way. The rest of the young states, except for Finland, Poland and the Baltic States, figured it out in more detail a little later. These five managed to figure out that, complete with independence, the first thing to do was to shoot all the friends of the Soviet regime.

Quote: Zug

Finns, for example, don't know who started

Finns, prolapsing their archives do not know who fired at the Soviet units. This is called "politeness", but in the case of the USSR / RF it is never appropriate.

Quote: Zug

You are just probably offended that the king

I also have many complaints about Nikolai. Of the people who were shot by the Soviet authorities in the 18th year, there are no questions about him.

[Zug]

Well, it means we went to protect the civilian population of Finland from the radical terror that roamed in full force in the 20-30s in Finland. And independence was not taken, it was REMOVED. You should study the chronology of the end of 17 years. The Finns tried to proclaim independence and sent a commission to France , Germany! .It.d. Where they were clearly told: Go to Russia, and bring us a document from the authorities confirming the adoption of the declaration of independence. Without it, we will not recognize you as a sovereign state. And the Finns (although they really didn’t want to) had to go to St. Petersburg and meet with Lenin. He himself signed and submitted a proposal to the AUCPB. They approved. And only then! Finland was off. Recognized as an independent state, on December 29 or something. From the beginning of 18, she began expansion into the territory of Karelia, whose territory, like their own, had never been their property before. We can also go to Africa now and start killing arguing that this is our ancestral homeland and we are freeing the Negro brothers. And about the archives. Listen to Bair Iryncheev. A man lives in Finland and shovels archives. Even the Finns do not know who started the Mainil incident. I’m from Petrozavodsk and the graves of the defenders of Karelia are on Lenin Square, I ask you to drive up, take a look. And no matter how red, no one gave the Finns the right to invade foreign territory))) Well, about the same as the Czechs, Poles, French and the Germans)))

[Igor Pavlenko]

Karelia is a Finnish land, which was recognized even by Stalin in 1939 in an agreement with the Finnish communists (Treaty of mutual assistance and friendship with the government of Kuusinen (1939), what kind of "Russian peasants"? What kind of Finnish expansion? uprisings?? If Finland and the Finnish army (and already in 1918 it had 80 thousand) decided to fight the Bolsheviks, they would not only have occupied Karelia, but the power of the Bolsheviks would have come to an end in Russia. France could not send Finns to Lenin because they considered the Bolshevik government illegitimate - so your fantasies are fantastic. France recognized Finland for purely pragmatic reasons so that she would not go over to the side of Germany. Because of such insignificant incidents as in Maniila, they do not start wars if they do not want to. The Finns all know perfectly well who committed the "incident. Mainila "," don't know "only
here - and did not want to know because they rejected a proposal for a joint investigation. The USSR immediately began a war for which it was prepared after the shelling.

[Zug]

Only in violation of the Peace of Tart of 1920, in November 1921, at the beginning of the expansion, 2500 Finnish soldiers crossed the border. The Finns did not have their own land, by definition, since they did not have a sovereign state until 1917. And yes, everyone considered our power illegitimate. But none of the countries agreed to recognize the independence of Finland without the approval of Russia. Finnish land in Karelia? Provide me with the documents what territory the Finns had the right to? What did they lose there? And about Mainila, you generally made me laugh. There were dozens of sabotage by the Finns before this incident! All of them are fixed by border outposts. At the moment, none of the parties can prove their involvement or involvement in the incident. Your fantasies with a particle WOULD be blah blah blah. they put a bayonet in the womb of their wife, they burn the children alive in the hut, and after taking off your pants, they hang you like a dog so that you can dance and yours ... but it flew in all directions like from a helicopter. would have wondered. You killed me. Finnish land ..

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Octopus

all other countries sided with Finland.

Not all. In the League of Nations by recognition
The USSR was the aggressor was a big dissonance ...

[Octopus]

Quote: Sahar Medovich

In the League of Nations by recognition
The USSR was the aggressor was a big dissonance ..

In whose face, excuse me?

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Represented by the member countries of the League.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Vasily50

The Finns are still making plans about * great Finland * all the way to the Urals and are not at all shy about it

Seriously?

[hohol95]

TVNZ
22.07.2019
Yeltsin's government was going to sell Karelia to the Finns for $ 15 billion
This was told by the former Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia

A sensational confession of Andrey Fedorov appeared in the Finnish press. In 1990-1991, he was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia (then - the RSFSR). According to him, in 1991 a special secret commission was created, which included Gennady Burbulis (Yeltsin's ally, who signed the Belovezhskaya agreements on behalf of the RSFSR), Andrey Kozyrev (who later became the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry) and Andrei Fedorov.
The Russian leadership was faced with the problem of an empty treasury, so the idea arose to replenish it by selling territories. According to Fedorov, Moscow in 1991 estimated the Karelian lands at $ 15 billion. It was also supposed to sell the Kuriles to the Japanese and the Pytalovsky district of the Pskov region - to Latvia (Riga, of course, did not have the funds to buy, but there was a possibility that their new western patrons).
Of course, these calculations were carried out behind closed doors. The then Finnish leadership - President Koivisto and the head of the diplomatic service Väyrynen - allegedly knew about this initiative, although this was later denied. Apparently, the doors in Moscow were not closed very tightly ... Because in Helsinki at the same time, similar calculations were carried out: Finland was ready to pay 64 billion marks for these territories ($ 14 billion at the exchange rate of that time), and the restoration of infrastructure was estimated at 350 billion marks ($ 77 billion).
According to Andrey Fedorov, the issue of Karelia was raised in one form or another until 1994. But in the end it was decided that Russia would independently develop the region and build cross-border cooperation.
The Finnish Foreign Ministry is now rejecting the existence of any territorial claims against Russia. Among Finns, nostalgia for the lost Karelia is encountered less and less often: now only every fifth participant in opinion polls is in favor of returning the region.

Almost the Finns didn’t "pick up" together with the Japanese tidbits!
But ... it didn't grow together ...

[Octopus]

Quote: hohol95

together with the Japanese tidbits!

Dainties? Are you talking about Soviet garbage cans?

Only Kolle was smart enough to buy this bullshit in those years. The Finns, praise the Scandinavian gods, had enough brains and not enough money to subscribe to this.

[Zug]

You would have kept the pagan language about Karelia - it's a garbage dump in your house and a trough in the kitchen.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

and in parallel from the north the bombing of LENINGRAD.

In the plan of Operation Pike, the bombing of Leningrad was not envisaged.

[Undecim]

The author should have asked how the principality of Finland was actually created
And how was it created? And how does this go against the message of the article?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Undecim

And how was it created? And how does this go against the message of the article?

in general, these distant flashbacks like

Quote: Undecim

how the principality of Finland was actually created

What relation the creation of the VKF has to the subject is not clear. I would also understand the mention of the Tartu MD of 1920, but what does the VKF have to do with it?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Vasily50

In Europe, there was already WWII, and in Finland, the French-British TOGETHER with the Germans armed the Finns.

The Reich sold Finland only 30 guns - less than 3% of the total supplied during the war.

[antivirus]

Finland, neutral or on the side of the USSR, would have made the blockade of Leningrad impossible

it's worse than if - Britain (army and navy) 50 km from Leningrad

of all the bad scenarios, the USSR chose to live and die with its own mind. survived. the price is at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the Alexander Garden.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: antivirus

Finland, neutral or on the side of the USSR, would have made the blockade of Leningrad impossible

There is one more question - would Finland be allowed to remain neutral?
1940 year. The past guarantors of Finland's independence are either defeated or fled to their island. But the USSR (which had just reunited the Tribaltica with itself) has not gone anywhere. Means what? That's right - you need to look for a new guarantor, otherwise the FSSR is not far away.
On the other hand, some people need a normal base for a war with the USSR in the North. And a wide front to put forces into battle, not a Norwegian gut.
So there will be two loneliness, even without SFV. As for neutrality - well, for a long time the same Hungary remained neutral?

[Olgovich]

Quote: Alexey RA

There is one more question - would Finland be allowed to remain neutral?
1940 year. The past guarantors of Finland's independence are either defeated or fled to their island. But the USSR (which had just reunited the Tribaltica with itself) has not gone anywhere. Means what? That's right - you need to look for a new guarantor, otherwise the FSSR is not far away.
On the other hand, some people need a normal base for a war with the USSR in the North. And a wide front to put forces into battle, not a Norwegian gut.
So there will be two loneliness, even without SFV. As for neutrality - well, for a long time the same Hungary remained neutral?

Sweden was even better suited in all respects.

Hungary is not that at all, it is already mated with an accomplice Czechoslovakia.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Olgovich

Sweden was even better suited in all respects.

Besides the main thing - Sweden does not border on the USSR.
And the Germans have already received everything else from the Swedes - including transit.

[Kwas]

Quote: Alexey RA

And the Germans have already received everything else from the Swedes - including transit.

And nevertheless, they planned to capture it, they probably wanted more. Operation "Northern Fox", if my memory serves.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Alexey RA

Besides the main thing - Sweden does not border on the USSR.

Italy did not border either, but ....

Quote: Alexey RA

And the Germans have already received everything else from the Swedes - including transit.

And what did they get comparable to what they got in Finland?
An army of hundreds of thousands of soldiers like Finland? Nothing.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Alexey RA

There is one more question - would Finland be allowed to remain neutral?

Speak everything right - they wouldn't give it. And the Finns are free to declare anything.
But the Finns tried - they refused Borukh Rivkin (more precisely, Comrade Stalin) to create a defense alliance in the spring of 1938, they refused to the Reich in the spring of 1939, banned the pro-fascist party, the pro-German radicals from the ICL were in an absolute minority in parliament, the Finns co-opted with Sweden, etc. .d., etc. But Mannerheim quite soberly assumed that declarations of neutrality would not mean shit in the event of a war, either for the aggressor or for his victim. And he is absolutely right - for example, the British did not particularly bother with the neutrality of the Norgs and Swedes when they made plans to land in Narvik and further along the railway to Luleå in order to block the supply of ore to the Reich.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

And he is absolutely right - for example, the British did not particularly bother with the neutrality of the Norgs and Swedes when they made plans to land in Narvik and further along the railway to Luleå in order to block the supply of ore to the Reich.

In general, the Allies were rather loose with the concept of "neutrality." Syria, Madagascar and North Africa will not allow a lie during Torch.
Need to secure the rear on the BV? And let's take French Syria (the French tried to defend themselves, but the forces were not equal). Need a quiet drop-off location? Why not land in neutral France. And if the French are against - then superiority in firepower is the best negotiating argument © Patton.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Alexey RA

In general, the Allies were rather loose with the concept of "neutrality."

yes) However, on neutrals, too, there is nowhere to put a stigma. Let's say, the same Portugal)
I'm not sure that there are no stains on the Vatican's cassock either)

[hohol95]

Will we look for a stigma on Iceland?
On May 10, 1940, Operation Fork began ...
Over 700 Marines and 4 of Her Majesty's warships against 60 police officers and 300 islanders' reservists!
Her Majesty's victory ...
All German citizens in the country were arrested.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: hohol95

On May 10, 1940, Operation Fork began ...
Over 700 Marines and 4 of Her Majesty's warships against 60 police officers and 300 islanders' reservists!
Her Majesty's victory ...

Iceland in WWII is generally apofigey. Not only was the independent kingdom of Iceland (the union with Denmark was broken after the occupation of Denmark) was first occupied by the British, but then the British handed it over to the Americans for occupation. Neutral at that time to the Americans, who had not yet formally entered the war.
From such an occupation of one neutral to another.

[Octopus]

Quote: Alexey RA

From such an occupation of one neutral to another

Why not noble don not to occupy any neutral?

Iceland has accounts with the occupiers over 50 years of Soviet power? Not? Then what's the question?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Octopus

Why not noble don not to occupy any neutral?

Yes, it was not an occupation at all. The noble American Dons were once again kicked out of the American continent (Iceland is America, FDR with its movable border the zone of the Neutral Patrol will not let you lie) brazenly climbed in there by the British colonialists who violated the fundamental principle of the Monroe Doctrine: America is engaged in American affairs, Europeans should not meddle in them.

[hohol95]

Iceland and the Faroe Islands have been forgotten ... Spring 1940.

[Octopus]

Quote: Alexey RA

In general, the Allies were rather loose with the concept of "neutrality." Syria, Madagascar and North Africa

Tellingly, Iran has been forgotten for some reason.

[hohol95]

Iran announced its neutrality ???
When? Do you have a date?

[Octopus]

In the sense of "declared neutrality"? Iran has declared war? Britain? THE USSR?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: antivirus

of all the bad scenarios, the USSR chose to live and die with its own mind. survived. the price is at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the Alexander Garden.

Sorry, but the soldiers who died in the war of 1939-1940 are not mentioned in the Alexander Garden. Not surprisingly, however, the Union preferred to speak very little and indistinctly about the Winter War. And even now, as I notice, many continue to exploit the stamp of Soviet historiography, in which the USSR is exposed as a victim of the treachery of the "White Finns".

[Far B]

For the same reason, all the plans of Great Britain and France to help Finland in the war with the USSR, in particular, the French plans to land a corps of 50 thousand people

Finland decided to go to war because Great Britain and France had the above plans voiced by the author. The fact that these plans were not realized - so it is ... Poland in the same time period hoped for the same "partners". With the same result. And what the hell is Germany's anti-Finnish position ??? Is that in the author's head.

[Octopus]

Quote: Dalny V

what the hell is Germany's anti-Finnish position ???

Finland was relegated to the sphere of Soviet interests by the MR pact. Hitler behaved decently until the Soviet side threw him in the summer of 40.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Dalny V

Finland decided to go to war because Great Britain and France had the above plans voiced by the author.

nonsense.
The blockade of Petsamo by the forces of the Polish fleet and allied ships under Polish and Finnish flags and the landing of troops were proposed by France in mid-January 1940, and not before the war. The very interesting plan of Daughtry sabotage on the Murmansk railway by the forces of Canadians and French Alpine riflemen disguised in Polish uniforms belongs to the same period.

[Octopus]

)))

It is said correctly, but not everything is said.

On December 1, 1939, Finnish workers who rebelled against the dictatorship of capital founded the Finnish Democratic Republic in Terijoki (Zelenogosk). People's Prime Minister of Finland, the working people elected Comrade. Otto Kuusinen. Like all the best people of that time, comrade Kuusinen at the time of his election worked in the executive committee of the Comintern.

For its part, the anti-popular former government of Finland in the person of the bourgeoisie, kulaks, clergy and reactionary officers knew a lot about the best people, and the previous party of the best people in the person of the Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic, Comrade. Manner was successfully outweighed. The people's democracy had to be destroyed at any cost. No matter how hard it is to believe it, the anti-popular former government managed to do it - comrade. Kuusinen had gone somewhere by the spring, and further negotiations comrade. For some reason, Molotov led exclusively with the White Finns.

The example of the Baltics and post-war Eastern Europe showed that the anti-people government was right in everything.

[Olgovich]

The article presents a view of the situation, ts, from the "other" side.

I disagree about Poland: in 1939, the USSR REALLY protected the lives and property of millions of people in former eastern Poland from Nazi bondage for two whole years. And this is a lot, considering that for each year of occupation, the population of Poland was destroyed in the amount of a MILLION people!

The war with Finland was not needed, it was necessary to agree to those concessions (and they were) to which she agreed. Instead of a possible neutrality in the inevitable and obvious imminent war, they got an ardent ally of Hitler.

The root of this tragedy was laid by the hasty blunt recognition of the independence of Finland by the Bolsheviks WITHOUT stipulating its borders in December 1917, which could be set by whatever convenient in the process of negotiations BEFORE recognition.

Stupid decisions led to a lot of blood of war, like the Brest betrayal of 1918.

[Far B]

The root of this tragedy was laid by the hasty blunt recognition of the independence of Finland by the Bolsheviks WITHOUT stipulating its borders in December 1917, which could be set by whatever convenient in the process of negotiations BEFORE recognition.

Stupid decisions led to a lot of blood of war, like the Brest betrayal of 1918.

Well, okay. Ol'govich knows much better, from the height of 2020, how to act in such situations. These stupid Bolsheviks, who were in time trouble, did not understand anything. Only the "stupid" ones, in a short period of time, less than five years, managed to collect almost all the lands of the Republic of Ingushetia under their wing. And over thirty - and a lot of new to cut. And what did the not stupid Olgovich collect in five years? Well, and at least thirty?

[Olgovich]

Quote: Dalny V

Well, okay. Ol'govich knows much better, from the height of 2020, how to act in such situations.

it was understandable even then, but to SMART people, and not to these stupid balding, but still not a day who had not worked anywhere else. Those who did not understand, accordingly, ANYTHING neither in management, nor in economy, nor in diplomacy, but from the whole set of tools of "management who knew only -" select, "force" to "lie."

They poked in one direction (put in millions), it didn't work out, poked in the other (put in millions), it didn't work out, poked into the third (put in millions), a little better ... So we learned to "manage".

But, in the end, they still did not learn, see. 91 g

Quote: Dalny V

These stupid Bolsheviks, who were in time trouble, did not understand anything. Only the "stupid" ones, in a short period of time, less than five years, managed to collect almost all the lands of the Republic of Ingushetia under their wing.

What have they "collected", have they forgotten? Union of STATES, at the expense of RUSSIA, but NOT Russia. Today you see these states through the window, but you see Russia - WITHOUT Odessa, Nikolaev, Verny, etc.

Quote: Dalny V

And over thirty - and cut a lot of new ones.

In elementary SCHOOL, you can learn that even AFTER the formation of the USSR, the territory of Russia DECREASED by 4 million km2

Quote: Dalny V

And what did not stupid Olgovich collect in five years? Well, but at least thirty?

Much more than minus 5 million km2 (this is already the loss of Russia since 1917)

[Far B]

Those who did not understand, accordingly, ANYTHING neither in management, nor in economy, nor in diplomacy

Uh-huh. And they won the Civil War, because all Kolchaks / Denikins / Wrangels drank themselves / smoked / died, and by themselves. But these characters really understood both in management, and in the economy, and in diplomacy.

in the end, they still did not learn, see. 91 g

What side are the "stupid" Bolsheviks to the 91st?

They poked one way (put millions), it didn't work, poked the other (put millions)

Reincarnation of Solzhenitsyn? I'm already afraid you will fill me up with corpses at once.

Union of STATES, at the expense of RUSSIA, but NOT Russia.

AFTER the formation of the USSR, the territory of Russia DECREASED by 4 million km2

The state was called the USSR. And the citizens who lived in it were citizens of the USSR. Dot. About the "mine planted by Lenin" - well, do not take away the bread from Putin, he is already, poor man, starving in the bunker.

Much more than minus 5 million km2 (this is already the loss of Russia since 1917)

Rubik's cube twice?

[Olgovich]

Quote: Dalny V

Uh-huh. And the Civil won

PRICE-forgotten? SIX times the number of victims of the WORLD WAR?

And they promised ... eternal peace. And where is he?

Quote: Dalny V

What side are the "stupid" Bolsheviks to the 91st?

None, yes: they just ruled ONLY, but it has nothing to do with it ...

Quote: Dalny V

Reincarnation of Solzhenitsyn? I'm already afraid you will fill me up with corpses at once.

TENS of millions of corpses of GW, famines 21,22,24,25,28,32,33,37,39,46,47 - dozens of times more victims world wars are a story you need to know

Quote: Dalny V

The state was called the USSR. And the citizens who lived in it were citizens of the USSR. Point

it was made up of sovereign states with the right to EXIT, which they did. Point

Quote: Dalny V

Much more than minus 5 million km2 (this is already the loss of Russia since 1917)
Rubik's cube twice?

Any plus is greater than a minus.

[Far B]

“Uh-huh. And the Civil won

PRICE-forgotten? SIX times the number of victims of the WORLD WAR?

Civil unleashed by your honors, and for some reason you hang all the victims on the Bolsheviks. Not good, sir. Ugly, sir.

And they promised ... eternal peace. And where is he?

In your opinion, the Bolsheviks were supposed to stand up with cancer and give your nobles a box of petroleum jelly, and not defend the gains of the revolution with arms in hand?

TENS of millions of corpses of GW, famines 21,22,24,25,28,32,33,37,39,46,47-ten times the number of victims of the world war is a history that you need to know

Exactly Solzh. Hand face.

it consisted of sovereign states with the right to EXIT

Following the results of referendums. Which were not. Point.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Dalny V

Civil unleashed by your honors, and for some reason you hang all the victims on the Bolsheviks. Not good, sir. Ugly, sir.

In SCHOOL you will be explained that there was no GW before the THIEF.

And tens of millions of people, who did NOT elect the bandits who seized power by force, DO NOT have to obey them. Why on earth ?!

Quote: Dalny V

In your opinion, the Bolsheviks were supposed to stand up with cancer and give your nobles a box of petroleum jelly, and not defend the gains of the revolution with arms in hand?

This is precisely because of the perfect seizure of power, which led to the GW.

Quote: Dalny V

Exactly Solzh. Hand face.

To school for knowledge of the history of their homeland. Learn the OFFICIAL documents of the country, then write, liar:

Quote: Dalny V

Following the results of referendums. Which were not. Point.

According to the Constitution of the USSR. And they left.
See through the window.
Point.

[Far B]

Before the thief, there was no GW

Really?))) The July crisis, the Kornilov rebellion are not GW, these are children in the sandbox playing naughty, yeah. In any case, we are talking about the fact that the Civil War was unleashed by your nobility, and you hang all the victims on the Bolsheviks.

And tens of millions of people, who did NOT elect the bandits who seized power by force, DO NOT have to obey them. Why on earth ?!

So I think - why should the Bolsheviks submit to the government of Prince. Lvov, and then Kerensky, who were not elected by anyone?

To school for knowledge of the history of their homeland. Learn the OFFICIAL documents of the country, then write, liar:

Bring proofs of official documents with tens of millions of corpses, liar.

According to the Constitution of the USSR. And they left.

It is according to the Constitution of the USSR - only according to the results of referenda. Which were not. That is, they came out contrary to the Constitution of the USSR. Learn materiel.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Dalny V

Really?))) The July crisis, the Kornilov rebellion are not GW, these are children in the sandbox playing naughty, yeah.

Exactly: contemporaries those events, including stupid loafers, called the GW events exactly after the thief - finally find out this FACT

Quote: Dalny V

... In any case, we are talking about the fact that the Civil War was unleashed by your nobility, and you hang all the victims on the Bolsheviks.

Not long the first time?
ONCE AGAIN: GW is the result of a thief exclusively,

Tens of millions of people are NOT OBLIGED to submit to a handful of bandits who called themselves .. "power".

WHAT STATE ?!

Quote: Dalny V

Bring proofs of official documents with tens of millions of corpses, liar.

-5 million victims 21-22 g-TSB
-7 million victims 32-33 g - Statement of the State Duma (under the rule of the Bolsheviks, they "did not exist", as well as hunger)

mass starvation mortality from diseases of hunger 1924,25,28,37,46,47 - in the documents of the ogpu, nkvd, etc., ignorant

Quote: Dalny V

It is according to the Constitution of the USSR - only according to the results of referenda. Which were not. That is, they came out contrary to the Constitution of the USSR. Learn materiel.

No referendum is mentioned in the Constitution, ignorant, but there is

72 Article. Each Union Republic retains the right to freely withdraw from the USSR.

There was a 1990 Law on the secession from the USSR, but in December 1991 there was nothing to come out of: the USSR Armed Forces decided on his death.

Learn finally

[Far B]

contemporaries of those events, including stupid loafers, called the GW events after the VOR - finally find out this FACT

Contemporaries can call anything and anything. But everything is put in its place precisely through the prism of time, on the basis of facts. And the facts show that in Russia GW was going on since February 1917. The July crisis, the Kornilov uprising, and the Great October Revolution itself are episodes of this war. Although yes, it was in the winter of 1918 that GW entered the hot phase. That does not negate the fact that your honors were the initiators of the aggravation.

-7 million victims 32-33 g -Statement of the State Duma

The statement of the state fool is an official document of the country ??? Hand face. Give me proofs official documents for tens, and even more so - tens of millions of victims. You shout about them so loudly in caps. So share it.

No referendum is mentioned in the Constitution, ignorant, but there is
“Article 72. Each union republic retains the right to freely secede from the USSR.

There was a 1990 Law on the secession from the USSR, but in December 1991 there was nothing to come out of: the USSR Armed Forces decided on his death.

Learn finally

What makes you think that everything should be spelled out in the Constitution, right down to the instructions for using the microwave? Has Putin bit you? The foundations are prescribed in the Constitution, details are set out in the relevant laws:

Law of the USSR of April 3, 1990 "On the procedure for resolving issues related to the secession of the union republic from the USSR": The decision on the secession of the union republic from the USSR is taken by the free expression of the will of the peoples of the union republic through a referendum (popular vote). The decision to hold a referendum is taken by the Supreme Soviet of a union republic on its own initiative or at a request signed by one tenth of the citizens of the USSR permanently residing in the republic and entitled to vote in accordance with the legislation of the USSR

So where does the "bomb planted by the Bolsheviks under the USSR" if the collapse of the country occurred illegal, contrary to applicable law? The Supreme Soviet of the USSR had no right to make a decision on the death of the country contrary to the will of the people expressed in the March referendum.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Olgovich

Stupid decisions led to a lot of blood of war, like the Brest betrayal of 1918.

Rather a thoughtless decision, similar to that made in 1991 by Yeltsin with the company. For those and other decisions had to pay in blood.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Octopus

And what kind of Nazi bondage is that?

Take the bus to Yad Vashem and ask at last

Quote: Octopus

How did it differ so fundamentally from the Soviet will? Not in general, and specifically in 1940 year?

Oh, you already have the GOOD Nazi times! You will go far, yes ...

[Olgovich]

Quote: Octopus

I, unlike you, are aware of the Holocaust. The Wannsee Conference was held in 1942. Before her, not only the good USSR, which almost saved everyone, but also Hitler, does not know about the Holocaust.

Liar:

Holocaust (Shoah) - 1933-1945-

https://www.yadwashem.org / ru / holocaust.html

.

Quote: Octopus

The argument "but not Hitler" does not work for me.

I don't give a damn about Nazi "good times" lovers

[Octopus]

Quote: Olgovich

Holocaust (Shoah) - 1933-1945-

As far as I am familiar with the point of view of modern Israel, it is customary to attribute the beginning of the Jewish genocide to the second millennium BC. However, specifically in the Reich, decisions on the final decision were made in the 42nd year.

And yes, the USSR did not save Jews from the Holocaust, including Soviet citizens, including in their "old" territories. So no, someone else's misfortune comrade. Stalin will not be smeared.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Octopus

As far as I am familiar with the point of view of modern Israel, it is customary to attribute the beginning of the Jewish genocide to the second millennium BC. However, specifically in the Reich, decisions on the final decision were made in the 42nd year.

You have been given an OFFICIAL interpretation of the time of the Holocaust Holocaust Memorial Complex

Who are you?

Quote: Octopus

And yes, the USSR did not save Jews from the Holocaust, including Soviet citizens, including in their "old" territories.

and many left the returned territories. We were saved. In the case of Nazi occupation, no chance.

You are for the Nazi occupation of ALL Poland, and for the strengthening of the Nazis thanks to this. Bravo! Showed their nmutrlo. ..

Quote: Octopus

So no, someone else's misfortune comrade. Stalin will not be smeared.

A lover of the Nazi occupation, Germany has remained weaker - and that's great for the whole world - read Churchill

[Operator]

The octopus is a Jew, and they, by and large, do not care about their relatives killed by the Nazis and their henchmen (the Lvov massacre and Babi Yar were before the Wannsee Conference, which means, according to their logic, they are not considered the Holocaust): see the modern Jewish financing of Bandera in the Outskirts, greetings from the Israeli President with Bandera slogans, approval by the Jewish President of the Outskirts of establishing public holidays in honor of Bandera, official statements by local rabbis about the absence of neo-Nazism on the Outskirts.

Nothing less than the general fans of Zocher-Masoch

[Olgovich]

Quote: Octopus

I am a person who, unlike official Israel, does not receive money from the Germans for the most victimized interpretation of history.

1.Compared to Yad Yad, you are nobody

2. To accuse the Jews of buying them ... by the Germans is already the height of rudeness

Quote: Octopus

Are you offering to thank the Soviet government for every Jew who was not killed by the Germans? For those Jews who were decided by the Soviet government itself, say, in the case of the JAC, should we thank or no longer?

Give thanks for liberation from Nazism and saving LIFE,

The situation with the EAK is a crime. But it can only be compared with the Holocaust

Quote: Octopus

I've read Churchill. He has a very peculiar view of history, typically British.

European

[Olgovich]

Quote: Octopus

Unfortunately, the official historians are also the official historians in Israel.

Chatter

Quote: Octopus

I see difficult words are not for you.

What word is difficult for you? You tell me I will explain

Quote: Octopus

Not surprisingly, the state of Israel suffered the most from Hitler.

Yeah, and SSCHA-from Columbus

Quote: Octopus

So only Germans are allowed to remind of crimes,

Yeah:

"The Poles collaborated with the Germans during the Holocaust, and I don't know anyone who was ever tried for such statements," Netanyahu said.

I also recommend the "Holocaust Encyclopedia"

Quote: Octopus

Why on earth? In addition to racial laws, the USSR had no questions to the Reich? You have there the USSR began a war with Germany in the name of saving the Jewish people, or what?

With such that they were ALIVE: Poles, Jews, Slovaks, etc.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Octopus

Thanks to Comrade Stalin for being alive? No, you won't.

Nafik who needs it, thank you.

Our country has fulfilled its HUMAN and MORAL duty to save people's lives, it needs it. And let the shamelessness of the shameless remain on their conscience

Quote: Octopus

In recent years, Poles and Jews have had a historical dispute over who is the main victim of WWII. Poles need to count Jews as Poles at home, Israel, of course, is against it, and wants to present Poles as aggressors towards Jews

I refer you to Holocaust encyclopedias and Yad Vashem documents about Lithuanians, Estonians, etc., who are directly accused of participating in the Holocaust

[Octopus]

Quote: Olgovich

I refer you to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and the Yad Vashem documents about Lithuanians, Estonians, etc., who are directly accused of participating in the Holocaust.

)))

Quote: Octopus

The Jews will not forget, of course, they have everything written down. But while the gesheft is going on, so be it, they will keep the list. After all, 2 thousand years of Christian and not only love taught them when and when not to remind of themselves.

[wehr]

An archive link of this document is it possible?

[Octopus]

Displaced letters? I don't work with archives.

Do you doubt the authenticity of the document? In the context of the desire of the Nazis of the 30s to send Jews somewhere, it does not seem strange to me.

[wehr]

Checking the inventory is never superfluous.

[Kwas]

Quote: Octopus

And yes, the USSR did not save Jews from the Holocaust, including Soviet citizens, including in their "old" territories.

You probably think that a poor Jew doesn't care whether he goes to Auschwitz or Tashkent?

[Octopus]

Quote: Kwas

You probably think that a poor Jew doesn't care whether he goes to Auschwitz or Tashkent?

You probably think that one Jew who ran to Tashkent (and was stuck in this hole for 50 years) removes from the USSR part of his guilt for the Holocaust? Which, let me remind you, began with the partition of Poland in 39?

By the way, for your reference. Israel's 6 first prime ministers were not affected in any way by the Holocaust. All they (or their families) were forced to flee from the God-bearing people, mainly under the old regime. The first prime minister to personally face the Holocaust was Menachem Begin.

He faced the following way.

His family, having fled to the Soviet zone in 39, was destroyed by the Germans in Vilnius, abandoned on the second day of the war (formerly the Polish city of Vilna).

He himself received in the 40th year 8 years of Soviet camps as an agent of British imperialism, and was evacuated by good Soviet authorities on the river. Pechora.

The Soviet government saved Jews as best they could.

[Kwas]

Quote: Octopus

And what kind of Nazi bondage is that? How did it differ so fundamentally from the Soviet will? Not in general, but specifically in 1940?

Read the plan "Ost" and accompanying documents.

[Octopus]

Quote: Kwas

Read the plan "Ost"

You mean Himmler's experiments in unscientific fiction? I seem to have been interested in the situation in the 40th year.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Olgovich

The root of this tragedy was laid by the hasty blunt recognition of the independence of Finland by the Bolsheviks WITHOUT stipulating its borders in December 1917, which could be set by whatever convenient in the process of negotiations BEFORE recognition.

Oh, is it? Isn't it stupid creature a virtually independent state within the Empire, which had privileges incomparable with the rest of the Empire (its own power, its own national bank, its own currency, its own court, its own laws, its own customs, its own army). And also by the long-term indulgence of this "independence" and the too late start of bringing the VKF in line with the unified imperial standard. The independence of 1917 only consolidated the actual state of affairs between the VKF and Russia.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Alexey RA

Oh, is it? Is it not the stupid creation of a virtually independent state within the Empire, with privileges incomparable with the rest of the Empire

nope, experiment on 1% territory (and not 100%, as in the USSR), God himself commanded.

Quote: Alexey RA

The independence of 1917 only strengthened actual condition affairs between VKF and Russia.

Nonsense, actually RUSSIAN troops were stationed in Helsigfors, Vyborg, etc., as in the Finnish Senate.

[Kwas]

Quote: Olgovich

Oh, is it? Is it not the stupid creation of a virtually independent state within the Empire, with privileges incomparable with the rest of the Empire

nope, experiment on 1% of the territory (and not 100%, as in the USSR) - God himself ordered

But for some reason, all these experiments were privileges, and were on the national outskirts.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Olgovich

Instead of a possible neutrality in the inevitable and obvious imminent war, they got an ardent ally of Hitler.

What Hitler's ardent ally received is true, only as a result not of the winter war, but of Hitler's summer campaign in the west. And so they would have had an ardent ally of England. In both cases - the ardent enemy of the USSR-Russia, and not neutral.

Quote: Olgovich

which could be set whatever convenient in the negotiation process BEFORE recognition.

Was it possible? Warranty?

[Olgovich]

Quote: Sahar Medovich

What Hitler's ardent ally got is true, only as a result of a non-winter war

aha-after the winter war, the Finns warmly thanked and "loved the USSR and did not want the territory back

Quote: Sahar Medovich

And so they would have had an ardent ally of England. In both cases - an ardent enemy of the USSR-Russia, and not neutral.

Allies of England-ALL became allies of Russia-Australia, Canada, etc., etc.

Quote: Sahar Medovich

Was it possible? Warranty?

Much is given for independence. They were given a GIFT.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Olgovich

after the winter war, the Finns warmly thanked and "loved the USSR and did not want the territory back

Do you think so?

Quote: Olgovich

Allies of England-ALL became allies of Russia-

Still would! In that situation, the British agreed to an alliance with Satan himself. But the situation could have developed in another way. And then ...

Quote: Olgovich

They give a lot for independence

Or they don't give anything. If possible. You did not answer: was it possible?

[The leader of the Redskins]

Thanks to the author. Very thorough analysis and balanced conclusion. A new topic was raised - the economic one. And it is inseparable from politics and the army.

[svp67]

And why, having said "A", showing the territories that Finland had lost, the author did not show the territories that the USSR offered it and did not describe their economic characteristics? Otherwise, it is clear that the "evil" USSR took it away, but what it offered is completely unclear ...

Finland before the war was oriented towards Great Britain, not Germany.

And the author is aware that it was Britain that was for us the most probable enemy in the 30s ... And Finland was not so "white and fluffy" ... Fighting on the Soviet-Finnish border, especially in The 20s were very common.

[A. Privalov]

The question of how Finland could decide to fight looks very strange. What do you mean, "decided"? Is it that she attacked the USSR? She fought because she seemed to be defending herself, no?

Now about the losses of industry and agriculture "as a result of the war." Would they be less than the Finns agreed with the demands of the USSR and peacefully, without any resistance, raised their paws? It seems to be not. All this went to the USSR with the territories passing over.
Then, what, in fact, is the article about?

[Octopus]

Quote: A. Privalov

The question of how Finland could decide to fight looks very strange

The only one of the four Baltic countries.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Octopus

The only one of the four Baltic countries.

And she was the only one that had at least some chances: the theater with the most developed road network is blocked by two lines of the UR, and in other theaters of operations you can only advance along one or two roads.
The Tribalts have not only that almost the entire border is accessible, but also Soviet military bases are standing.

[Octopus]

Quote: Alexey RA

And she was the only one who had at least some chance

Yes. But also courage must be mentioned.

[parusnik]

Then, what, in fact, is the article about?

... If this so-called economy is removed, the message of the article is simple Nazi Germany and the USSR, twins brothers, razed Poland, Finland did not want to be Czechoslovakia -2 and the Baltic states .. Nazis and communists fought with European democracies ... In the spirit of the times. ...

[tihonmarine]

Finland, neutral or on the side of the USSR, would have made the blockade of Leningrad impossible.

I also thought about this all the time, even when the Germans surrounded Peter, there was a corridor to Finland, and if Finland was neutral, the city could live and defend itself, there would not be so many victims of the civilian population.
I read Finnish publications in translation, but I could not find an economic overview anywhere. Thanks to the author, I wrote it very competently.

[akunin]

Finland, neutral or on the side of the USSR, would have made the blockade of Leningrad impossible.

Finland before the war was oriented towards Great Britain,

not a word about the ussr

It was necessary not to demand territories from the Finns, but, on the contrary, to pull to their side, offering them bread and coal in abundance.

Why did they decide that the Finns would not want German coal and bread? Finland was not friends with us at that time.

Coal, perhaps, was far from being transported to Finland from the Donbass, but the mines of the Pechersk coal basin were already under construction and the Kotlas-Vorkuta railway was under construction.

the quality of the Vorkuta and Donbass coals cannot be equated - a completely different product (the Donbass urol is much better).

[apro]

The author is still that storyteller ... the relationship between the USSR and Finland is interpreted from the position of innocent us. After 1917, the Finns positioned themselves as consistent opponents of the country of the Soviets. And all its actions followed in this direction. With the help of the English. it was impossible without war. Finnish neutrality can only be ensured by the might of the USSR.

[parusnik]

The author is still that storyteller ...

... Yeah, they weren't friends for 20 years, and in 1941, they would have rushed to save the USSR, being neutral, if the insidious USSR had not taken away the territory ...

[sevtrash]

It seems like there were 4 Soviet-Finnish wars and 3 of them started by the Finns. Well, the first 2, when the Russian Empire collapsed, began from the desire of the Finns to take territory for themselves, which after the first war they succeeded.
Of course, the threat to Leningrad was and was quite real. Finland was not friendly, and that Germany and Britain had plans for military operations and, of course, a strike on the largest city with significant production potential, were probably being worked out. Not to mention the name, among other things.
Here's an example. Are there any parallels with the Golan Heights?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: sevtrash

Here's an example. Are there any parallels with the Golan Heights?

and which ones?

Quote: sevtrash

Britain had plans for military action and, of course, an attack on the largest city with significant production potential was probably being worked out.

and what, there is information about the plans of the British to bomb Leningrad? Share?

[apro]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

and what, there is information about the plans of the British to bomb Leningrad? Share?

They have already bombed only Petrograd in civilian ... from bases in Finland ...

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: apro

They have already bombed only Petrograd in civilian ...

it was 20 years before the events described. Are there any more chronologically examples of such plans?

[apro]

Of course, but not Leningrad, but Baku and Grozny fields ... who knows what is worse, as well as sending a Polish brigade to Finland under the British command ... and supplying weapons.
The precedent was however ...

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

my reply was to this passage:

Britain had plans for military action and, of course, an attack on the largest city with significant production potential was probably being worked out.

what does Operation Pike have to do with it? Oh, well, yes, the Russian segment of Wikipedia broadcasts that, they say, Petsamo, Murmansk and Arkhangelsk were also parts of the Pike plan. Well, that's Wikipedia. Apparently, they associated the name of General Ironside with Arkhangelsk, where he was lucky enough to visit during the intervention? ))
By the way, this idea about the bombing of Baku was thrown up by Mannerheim at a meeting with Brigadier Christopher J. Ling in early January. Plus sending 30 troops north would have allowed him to hold out against the Soviets until May.

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

Quote: sevtrash
Here's an example. Are there any parallels with the Golan Heights?

and which ones?

The most that neither is the simplest. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and annexed in the name of Israel's "security". And besides, there were economic advantages. The Soviet Union also had concerns for the safety of Leningrad. Well, the parallel is not visible?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: sevtrash

Well, the parallel is not visible?

That is, in your opinion, Israel, as a result of aggression, occupied the Golan, attacking Syria ??

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

That is, in your opinion, Israel, as a result of aggression, occupied the Golan, attacking Syria ??

But whose territory is the Golan Heights? The UN recognizes this territory as Syrian, actually. Or didn't you?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Once again: do you think Israel, defending its security, attacks Syria and occupies the Golan? What parallel to the Winter War do you see at all?

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

Once again: do you think Israel, defending its security, attacks Syria and occupies the Golan? What parallel to the Winter War do you see at all?

Once again - The most that neither is the simplest. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and annexed in the name of Israel's "security". And besides, there were economic advantages. The Soviet Union also had concerns for the safety of Leningrad. Well, the parallel is not visible?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Well, well, well, let there be a parallel, God bless her.

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

Well, well, well, let there be a parallel, God bless her.

Yes, in general, it is clear what you mean. Like, if Israel seized someone else's territory, then this is all right, because it needs security, it is protected like this. And water and earth, moreover, will not interfere. And if the Soviet Union was thinking about security, then he, like, is already an aggressor.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: sevtrash

And if the Soviet Union was thinking about security, then he, like, is already an aggressor.

Yes, no, of course not. The peace-loving USSR, by definition, could not be an aggressor. In November 39, he fell victim to a treacherous attack by bloodthirsty Finns.

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

Yes, no, of course not. The peace-loving USSR, by definition, could not be an aggressor. In November 39, he fell victim to a treacherous attack by bloodthirsty Finns.

Everything is relative. Peace-loving Israel has strayed far from the 1947 UN plan to partition Palestine. West Bank of the Jordan River, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, Lebanon, Arab "Catastrophe". And what about the Mossad operations, kidnappings, murders in other countries? And the bombing of a nuclear reactor in Iraq?
But of course not. Peace-loving Israel, by definition, cannot be an aggressor. In May 1948, he fell victim to a treacherous attack by bloodthirsty Arabs.

In defense of the fatherland and your ideas, you can go far, where is it - the border? The United States, for example, is now walking across China, across Russia, but in fact the Americans have no boundaries in "protecting" their interests. Israel, of course, will have a thinner border, well, the Middle East will take over. And the Soviet Union, and in 1939 - just a baby.

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

and what, there is information about the plans of the British to bomb Leningrad? Share?

Ask the British if they can share with you. Does the history of relations between Great Britain and Russia, the Soviet Union say something? Occupation since 1918 of the territories and troops of Britain, colonies and dominions, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Baltic, Black Sea, Caspian, Transcaucasia, Curzon's ultimatum in 1923, Chamberlain's note in 1927. And yes, Operation Pike. This is only in plain sight, but which is deeper?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

do not spread your thoughts, my dear. I asked about Britain's specific plans to bomb Leningrad. If there is nothing to answer about this (and I am sure there is), then do not overflow from empty to empty about intervention, notes and Operation Pike.

[sevtrash]

Well, what is this "empty"? This is a constant threat to the Soviet Union, which resulted not in any way, but the occupation of territories, the threat of war by ultimatums and notes. I have no doubts about Britain's plans. If you were not informed, it does not mean that they were not.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: sevtrash

I have no doubts about Britain's plans. If you were not informed, it does not mean that they were not.

clear. Some mythical plans, which do not exist, but which definitely were, yes. I have no more questions.

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

Some mythical plans, which are not, but which definitely were, yes. I have no more questions.

Sometimes a country has nuclear weapons for sure, tests have been carried out, a nuclear reactor is working - but they say no. Mystic! Hmm. This is how it goes. And you say - where are the plans, and then there is a nuclear bomb, and there is more than one, but as if not. Some questions.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

why the Jews do not give you so much peace?
fad?)

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

why the Jews do not give you so much peace?
fad?)

My dear, it was you who soared to the mention of the Golan Heights. Fad?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

No, I just do not understand these parallels of yours between the Winter and Six Day Wars in their essence, regardless of geography. And with regards to 'had the right' - yes, everyone has the right to everything, what really. Any aggression can be explained by the need for protection, border security, preventive considerations, concern for fellow believers / members of the same faith and other blah blah blah. And the position of international institutions, to put it mildly, has always been ... They are appealed to for obvious reasons. Comrade Lenin also bequeathed to spit on the League of Nations (well, read, at least, the transcript of his speech at the 9th RKP (B) conference after the shameful fiasco in the war with Poland). So, all these sentiments' the USSR had the right.! .. "" Finland had no right! ... "I, in general, are deeply indifferent. In the Winter USSR, he was an aggressor, and value judgments about his reasons are the essence of complete nonsense. Especially when presented with pathos.
))

[sevtrash]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

So, all these sentiments' the USSR had the right.! .. '' Finland had no right! ... 'I, in general, are deeply indifferent. In the Winter USSR, he was an aggressor, and value judgments about his reasons are the essence of complete nonsense. Especially when presented with pathos.

Well, as I understand it, you associate the six-day war with such a pretentious-epic battle, where absolute good meets absolute evil. Well, not only the six-day war, apparently. And, of course, how can you compare epic battles with some kind of Soviet-Finnish wars and talk about the occupation of the Golan and everything else! So the pathos seems to be with you.
But the reality is the same here and there - the Soviet Union took the territory in the war in the name of preventing a possible shelling of Leningrad, Israel did the same with the Golan Heights.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

... how can you compare epic battles with some kind of Soviet-Finnish wars and

Well, well, do not distort, I did not write that.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

[quote] [very few people thought that the Finns could have good reasons to hold on to the Karelian Isthmus.quote]
On the contrary, many people understand this. As well as the USSR had good reasons to take it over. This question arose even before 1917. But Mannerheim suggested that his government give the isthmus to the Russians ...
[quote] Nevertheless, the decision to fight was made, despite the fact that it was, in essence, a suicidal decision. / quote]
Moreover, the first week of the war the Finns tried to attack
[quote] [The link to the fact that you need to hold out for six months, and then help from the West (that is, Great Britain and France) will come was more a means of complacency than a real calculation quote
This was precisely the real calculation. True, based on unrealistic initial data ...
[quote] Finland, neutral or on the side of the USSR, would have made the blockade of Leningrad impossible. / quote]
And Germany, neutral or on the side of the USSR, would have made war impossible ...
And in general: what about the idea of ​​"Greater Finland" with the annexation of Soviet territories to it almost to the Ob?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Sahar Medovich

And in general: what about the idea of ​​"Greater Finland" with the annexation of Soviet territories to it almost to the Ob?

no way. All the shards of empires and all the limitrophes were puffing with greatness. This was the fundamental ideologeme of the Versailles misunderstandings, stimulating the people to "get up from their knees," hatred for the recent overlords and compensation for the inferiority complex. The same is with Finland.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Why not? If all the limitrophes were puffed up with greatness, what kind of "neutrality" can we talk about?

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Sahar Medovich

what kind of "neutrality" can we talk about?

Finland tried nonetheless. Refusing alliance to both Stalin and Hitler in 38-39

[Yaik Cossack]

The final thesis of the author about Finland's preservation of its neutral status in World War II is extremely weak and unsubstantiated. Finland tried in every possible way to occupy Karelia. Finland in the 20s waged the so-called "tribal wars", that is, it invaded Soviet Karelia to capture it.

Is this "good neighborly Finnish neutrality"? Really? Then, when the USSR got stronger in martial law, Finland was naturally already afraid to touch it. But the propaganda of "Greater Finland" was carried on constantly.

So if the Nazi offensive in 1941 was successful, the likelihood of Finland joining Hitler's side was very high.
And in 1941 the Finnish army did not stop at the old border, but happily seized a huge part of Karelia from Petrozavodsk.

[Knell wardenheart]

Have a good look at this issue! We shouldn't have started a war with the Finns - Spain / Mongolia was enough to test equipment and military experts. From a strategic point of view, the old border with the Finns was not the worst stopper on which to build a good defensive line.
Unfortunately, the Finns drank from us in full - either in the civil war or in the Soviet-Finnish war.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

We shouldn't have started a war with the Finns

Should have waited for them to start it? In unfavorable conditions for us?

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Spain / Mongolia was enough to run in equipment and military experts. FROM

This was not the purpose of these wars.

[Knell wardenheart]

Kamooon, rili? :) 3.5 million Finland is attacking the USSR, seriously believe it?) Well, like they waited and waited until industrialization took place there, while the technicians were ripe for aviation - and then such - let's go guys, we’ll overwhelm the USSR! Well, yes, and then why was Mannerheim's linnia built? Usually the defense is built by the side that does not plan an offensive - can you even imagine the Finnish budget?) Do you think they had a stash in addition to the funds that went to the defensive lines?)
And no, you think that all the imperialist neighbors would be harnessed for them as one. That is, logically - when we attacked Finland and got stuck tightly in its defensive lines - then it was not kosher to attack, but to pounce all at once across the Finnish border "suddenly" (I wonder how it would have happened suddenly, given the modest capabilities of Finnish ports and our agents) this is the very thing, well, logically!
Finland has seen all these wars of yours in its grave - they lived quite well for themselves, although not richly. Their dem. Potential and the degree of militarization would have made it possible to wage an active offensive war, perhaps with Luxembourg or the Vatican!

It doesn't matter what was the goal of the war in Spain / Mongolia - the experience of using modern weapons was gained. What kind of experience did we get by running our heavy equipment on the rugged and unsuitable terrain of Finland - that's the question. Certainly not the experience of modern tank warfare! Maybe the fact that we played with Molotov's breadbasket in Helsinki gave our aviation some valuable experience? Not. It was all a carnage for the chimera and bringing big problems to our already unhealthy politics of the time. What we called the "clique of imperialists" in a year will already become our favorite allies, they will send us materials and equipment. All this bullshit, that is why we started that war with the Finns.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

3.5 million Finland is attacking the USSR, do you seriously believe that?)

Do you believe that, according to the estimates of the most competent specialists of the USSR, in 1941 it should have been defeated by Germany in 10 days? Not weeks, but days, Karl! I would be glad not to believe that Finland would not have attacked, but ... facts, facts. Confirmed by the Finns themselves.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

waited, waited until the industrialization took place there, while the technicians rivet and aviation - and then such - let's go guys, we will fill up the USSR

The only trouble is that they (and not only they) did not think that the Soviets had riveted a lot of technology. The Finns instilled in their soldiers that there were no Russian tanks AT ALL, but there were tractors sheathed with painted plywood, which was pierced with a bayonet ..

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

to pile up all at once across the Finnish border "suddenly" (I wonder how it would have happened suddenly, given the modest capabilities of Finnish ports and our agents) this is the very thing, well, logically!

I did not understand the logic - why should everyone pile up across the Finnish border? The USSR is very vulnerable militarily and geographically; it can be attacked from many directions.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Their dem. Potential and the degree of militarization would make it possible to conduct an active offensive war, perhaps with Luxembourg or the Vatican

Unfortunately for us, they had a different opinion about it ...

[Knell wardenheart]

Let's go in order .. who are the most competent specialists? American analysts of that time?) Then in America even sensible foreign intelligence did not exist as a single department))
What data were these "analysts" based on? I will remind you that the USSR was closed country, hid statistics, kept secret everything that was possible, followed foreigners, of whom there were not so many on the eve of the war. Even for cooperation with some sort of "Salvation Army" in the USSR, they could be imprisoned far and for a long time. Thus, all these "experts from overseas" proceeded from the scattered impressions of American specialists who gathered here factories, diplomatic representatives, missionaries and defectors from the western districts - many of whom weaved an outright linden for them, trying to make money on this or inspire intervention against the USSR (and therefore they they especially loved fairy tales about the clay colossus and the prison of nations breathing in incense).
Maybe you are referring to French or English analysts?) So there was an even more powerful level - we slept through Germany's preparations for BB2, slept through German military plans, the capture of France, the Dunkirk prelude. Local analysts wrote a lot and colorfully - both about unlimited war in the air, and about the ultra-modern use of tanks - but they got into a puddle at 0 and right off the bat when it all started.
If you mean German analytics - built more or less on agents, air reconnaissance and much more extensive intelligence training and cooperation - then there was no talk of 10 days) The Barbarossa Plan is certainly the most serious document drawn up by the most serious people, shows us other terms.

Any country is full of radicals, and in the mid-30s, ideas similar to fascist ones were popular in many European countries and overseas. The apologists of these ideas carried all sorts of nonsense, marched with torches and talked about "Great Finland" "Great Poland" "Endless Latvia" and so on. Where there were serious democratic institutions and more or less prosperity, these ideas were at the level of salon tales or marginal demagogy. Often, even now we are very fond of extracting the authoritative "opinion" of some foreign husk from the Redneck Alabama newspaper, in which the author discusses American Kamchatka or the world division of Siberian mineral resources. Such statements were and will be a part of our internal propaganda and embellishment of history.

What did you want the Finns to say to their soldiers? "You know, we have a dozen five-tower tanks and twenty thousand Russians with artillery and aviation behind the next hillock, but we have skis and a funny Finnish song"? We, as people, were treated before the Second World War? They were told - yes, if anyone pokes himself, yes, we are in his ram's horn, once and again, and on his territory everything is in dust. Propaganda.

Well, yes, very vulnerable - but we laid a couple of hundred thousand people with bones in this very direction, from which no one ever really came! This is what I'm talking about - it was a stupid adventure to explain with something reasonable the more difficult the more you consider the details.

Finally - you know, the opinion! If a person imagines himself to be Hercules and got hold of a lion's skin, this does not mean that he will be a great warrior. In pre-war Finland there was ONE cartridge factory, TWO battleships in the fleet, how many planes were there - ten, twenty? No, of course they could have merrily crossed the border with guns and knives - but seriously, would they have gone so far if we had built a little bit of defense there? The Finns had no motive to love or respect us - we helped the Reds in their civil war. But there they understood very well what a war on our territory would lead to.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

No, American military experts calculated that the Soviet Union would hold out for no more than three months. And that the Russians would hold out no more than ten days, the British intelligence believed, which no one accused of either inexperience or incompetence.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

all these "experts from overseas" proceeded from the scattered impressions of American specialists who gathered here factories, diplomatic representatives, missionaries and defectors from the western districts - many of whom weaved an outright linden for them, trying to make money on this or inspire intervention against the USSR tales about the clay colossus and the prison of peoples breathing in incense).
Maybe you are referring to French or English analytics?) So there was an even more powerful level - we slept through Germany's preparation for BB2

Forgive me if everyone in the world was like that, why should Finns be an exception?

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

What did you want the Finns to say to their soldiers?

I AM? In principle, I did not object to them holding a referendum on joining the USSR.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Propaganda.

Propaganda is propaganda, but when, as a result, soldiers try to shoot tanks with machine guns, and those with machine guns, you know ...

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

exactly in this direction, from which no one has ever really come

But this is not true. They came more than once and not for some reason, but with the aim of chopping off the territory. And with the creation of a puppet government.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

But they understood perfectly well what a war on our territory would lead to.

They understood perfectly, but as it turned out later, they were wrong.

[Knell wardenheart]

Ahaha, British intelligence)) British intelligence based its conclusions on the work of Polish intelligence, which, in turn, got out of its pants to show them the USSR in the right light - as a dangerous but flimsy bulk, pushing a little (with English money) which the problem would be solved. The British had even fewer opportunities to study our abilities than the Americans; they had a very modest commercial and business presence in the USSR - it was pure fantasy.

Another funny joke about the puppet government) You know, we had such a dude Otto Kuusinen, a Finnish communist. With his participation, we organized the "Democratic Republic of Finland" - wow, it was a pure puppet state. Claimed that the capital was in Helsinki) I don’t remember that the Finns sculpted something like that with a claim to Moscow)

I have a strange feeling of unreality when I here for a long time and persistently prove the absolute military incomparability of the military and resource power of all types of the USSR and Finland, in some kind of blocs or without them. Here, several people really believe in some kind of potential threat from the state, whose population was only slightly larger than the population of Leningrad itself, and industrially, this country was never even in the European industrial ten.

Well, let's attack Latvia with Estonia, Chotam, there is even a larger total population, and the level of militarization is higher than in pre-war Finland. It's a soooo threat, downright creepy.

There we have Georgia on the borders, there is the same population as in Finland, let's attack it, otherwise they will now bring NATO soldiers by airplanes and kick it! This is exactly the same nonsense was the logic that Finland is dangerous for the USSR of 1939. And the result in case of an attack on us would be the same as in August 2008 in the case of Georgia.

Because incomparable things cannot be compared))

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Sahar Medovich

In principle, I did not object to them holding a referendum on joining the USSR.

very funny.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

... according to the estimates of the most competent specialists of the USSR in 1941 should have been defeated by Germany in 10 days?

Read Tymoshenko's directive of 25.11.40/XNUMX/XNUMX about how, in the event of war, the Red Army should defeat Finland.
And who are these 'most competent specialists'?
.

... The Finns instilled in their soldiers that there were no Russian tanks AT ALL, but there were tractors sheathed with painted plywood, which was pierced with a bayonet ..

Can you tell us more about this? It is curious to look at the instructions for a Finnish soldier on fighting Soviet tractors.
Along the way, the question is: how did you spend 100 days with such idiots?

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

Can you elaborate on this?

Please:
"- Commander, on the right, at the edge, skiers!
I see them ... They jump out from behind the trees in groups, and, shooting on the go, rush towards us, towards the road ... Many have submachine guns in their hands, or, as they are also called, machine guns - a new and powerful melee weapon. But not against tanks, of course. Why are they attacking us? I command into the microphone:
- On skiers - fire! ...
A shower of fire sweeps away the skiers, and many raise their hands up.
We interrogated the prisoners at the edge of the forest for ten minutes. Some of them were still shaking with nervous chills. As if only now they realized all the madness of attacks with small arms against armor. When asked what caused this, the captured non-commissioned officer began to tell such things that I asked the translator ... And he explained that the battalion commander had assured the soldiers the day before yesterday: the Russians, they say, do not have real tanks, but only old, foreign-made tractors ... They are covered with plywood painted under the armor, you can pierce it with a bayonet blow, not to mention a bullet and a grenade. (V.S.Arkhipov)

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

It's funny. To bring this memoir nonsense as an argument is strong.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Not funny. Not nonsense. It's powerful.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Sahar Medovich

Not funny.

how funny

Quote: Sahar Medovich

Not nonsense.

funny dashing delirium.

Quote: Sahar Medovich

It is strong.

Well, yes, well, yes, because it fits very comfortably on your matrix, therefore "strong"? You, apparently, unconditionally believe everything that the memoirists write? I sympathize.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

You, apparently, unconditionally believe everything that the memoirists write

On the contrary, I am rather skeptical. I believe only when there are reasons for this or there are no reasons not to believe. In addition - I know this from experience - the memoirs of participants and eyewitnesses of the events, with all their bias, are more truthful than the inventions of modern rewriters of history. Usually.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

I would be glad not to believe that Finland would not have attacked, but ... facts, facts.

yes, what are the facts? 30 ancient incapacitated FT-17s, suitable only for NOTs, and 30 Vickers - a mighty, damn it, an armored fist of the Finns, which they could place a LVO, or what? Or does the fact that they did not have bomber aircraft also speaks in favor of your theory "Finland could attack"?

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Against plywood tractors and this is a mighty armored fist. And the facts are such that the Finnish General Staff, with a blue eye, believed that Finland was capable of resisting the USSR one-on-one for six months and the Finns began the winter war with offensive actions. What guided them - it would be good to ask them. While.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Sahar Medovich

Against plywood tractors and this is a mighty armored fist.

this plywood nonsense, which you cling to, is not interesting to discuss.

And the facts are such that the Finnish General Staff, with a blue eye, believed that Finland was capable of resisting the USSR one on one for six months

No need to talk about blue eyes, at a meeting with Brigadier Kr.J. Ling Mannerheim said that he would hold out at most until May and only if the expeditionary force landed in Petsamo and the fleet was activated in that area. Plus the supply of military materials. The Finns did not build any illusions about one-on-one.

Quote: Sahar Medovich

and the Finns began the winter war with offensive actions.

what nafig "offensive actions"? Mobile defense and motti tactics.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

not interesting to discuss.

Not interesting - don't discuss. The fact from this does not cease to be a fact.

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

The Finns did not build any illusions about one-on-one.

Quite right. They would have a calculation, not an illusion. Therefore, offensive actions. And mobile defense and motti-tactics are not so old, yak guessing.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Sahar Medovich

The fact from this does not cease to be a fact.

this "fact" exists only in your imagination, sorry

Quote: Sahar Medovich

They would have a calculation, not an illusion. Therefore, offensive actions.

what have you gotten about offensive actions? What the hell, and where ?? Were they going to defeat the Soviets, which outnumbered them by an order of magnitude and all types of weapons ??

And mobile defense and motti-tactics - this is not how it became, yak guessing.

Yeah, yeah, that's why Kondratyev and his headquarters fired bullets in their foreheads, and Kondrashov was shot. Corpses and scrap metal on the Raat road - is that also "not so bad"? Or the defeat of the 44th SD and the tragedy of the 163rd SD - is this also the propaganda of the Finns as "plywood tractors"?

[Sugar Honeyovich]

That this fact exists only in my imagination - it exists only in your imagination, sorry. In fact, it exists in reality.

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

offensive actions? What the hell, and where ??

Roughly the same as before. Mainly to northern Karelia.

Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer

is it also "not so bad"?

Of course. The Germans in 1941 achieved much greater successes, but the war plan went to pieces. So it is with the Finns - they (primarily in the person of the president) planned 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 (including the Kola Peninsula)" ...

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

clear. In addition to stupid, greasy cliches about Great Finland and some fantasies "the Finns were advancing", "plywood tractors" and other crap, there is nothing to tell you. The Finns, it turns out, had their own Barbarossa in 1939, look how. But the heroic Red Army, they say, thwarted the treacherous plans of the Finns with 30 Vickers to seize Karelia and put the Finns advancing along the entire front to flight. Anyone who thinks differently is rewriting history.
I have no more questions.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

I am glad that you understood everything correctly and got rid of delusions.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Have a good look at this issue! We shouldn't have started a war with the Finns - Spain / Mongolia was enough to test the equipment and military experts.

Mongolian experience is a corpus level. Artificially limited conflict - when on each side fights on the calculated corps, and the rest of the forces of the Far Eastern Front and KVA are closely watching each other. The number of forces involved is limited (no one wants a full-fledged war). TVD - too ("do not cross the border").
In addition, the entire experience of Khalkhin Gol is "how to encircle Japanese forces on a 50 km front for a week and discover as a result that they left"It was just that Voroshilov's letter about the absence of the number of trophies declared by Zhukov was not given a move.
And even this experience remained in the Trans-Ural theater of operations, for only local units and formations (except for the Air Force) took part in the battles.

But SPV is a full-fledged war of the army-front level. With the interaction of species and genera (more precisely, with the initial absence of this interaction). With a breakthrough of the line of long-term defense. With boilers. With the mobilization of the rear.
It is not for nothing that the IVS recognized the SFV as the first real modern war of the Red Army.

What prevented our army from quickly reorganizing and adapting to conditions on the move, not preparing for a walk, but for a serious war. What prevented our command staff from reorganizing to wage war not in the old way, but in a new way? After all, keep in mind that for the entire existence of Soviet power we have not yet fought a real modern war. Minor episodes in Manchuria, near the lake. Hasan, or in Mongolia, is nonsense, this is not a war, these are isolated episodes in a strictly limited patch. Japan was afraid to unleash a war, we didn’t want that either, and some test of strength on the spot showed that Japan had failed. They had 2-3 divisions and we have 2-3 divisions in Mongolia, the same number on Khasan. Our army has not yet waged a real, serious war. The Civil War is not a real war, because it was a war without artillery, without aviation, without tanks, without mortars. Without all this, what is this serious war? It was a special war, not modern. We were poorly armed, poorly dressed, poorly fed, but still we defeated the enemy, who had much more weapons, who was much better armed, because here the spirit mainly played a role.
So, what prevented our commanding assembly from waging a war in Finland in a new way, not in the type of civil war, but in a new way? In my opinion, the cult of tradition and experience of the civil war interfered. As our command structure is regarded: have you participated in the civil war? No, I did not participate. Go away. Did he participate? Participated. Give him here, he has a lot of experience and more.
I must say, of course, the experience of the civil war is very valuable, the traditions of the civil war are also valuable, but they are completely insufficient. This is precisely the cult of the tradition and experience of the civil war that must be put to an end, and it prevented our command personnel from immediately reorganizing themselves in a new way, on the tracks of modern war.

© Meeting on the results of the SPS

[Knell wardenheart]

I cannot agree with you - it was much more important for the USSR to test its weapons at that time "in a combat situation" than to train in some kind of epic environment. Because there were much more questions with weapons than with the level of training. composition - military-industrial complex enterprises often drove very raw products, with a mass of marriages, in the army there were a sufficient number of heterogeneous products and a variety of theoretical approaches to the design of military equipment. wars in China, Spain, Ethiopia, according to the quite open works of German and British theorists - and then to test them on exercises (which we conducted in sufficient numbers), it was more difficult to gain experience in operating our equipment in a combat situation.
And in this regard - the Finnish front gave much less than the same Spain and the battles with the Japanese - because our army praised the expansive and swift tactical school of action. What happened in Finland cannot be called either one or the other. Our soldiers died from frostbite and sniper fire, we fought not with a modern, well-equipped army, but with semi-guerrilla echeloned defense in a rather modest theater of operations, which did not allow us to properly apply the forces and means on which we pinned hopes in preparing for a major war "with little blood, a mighty blow." This experience had no or almost no effect on the fight against the Germans - a modern, highly mobile, complex and expansive army, behind which was an array of efficient industry. On the contrary, it gave them an ally - a motivated, well-versed theater of operations and extensive experience in fighting us. So, in hindsight, in our patriarchal dogmatic state to the bone, they knew how to pass off any game as a cunning multi-move, but if you put everything on shelves - the Finnish campaign did not fulfill its strategic task - the Finns became part of an aggressive bloc directed against us and threatened Leningrad for whose safety everything seems to have been started. An epic defeat in a lightning-fast company with the aim of an external demonstration of Soviet power did not work either. "A little blood, a mighty blow" also did not work. On the contrary, we lost 126 people in the killed alone (the regular army, I will note), the seriously wounded, frostbitten, shell-shocked and disabled people - we got more than 000 (also from the regular army). Thus, on the eve of the Second World War, we lost at least 200 combat-ready personnel officers, who soon had to be replaced with various tricks and Podolsk cadets.

For all this, we got territories, a significant part of which we soon lost - well, and the understanding that five-turret tanks with a bad running gear are still not cake. In my opinion, the exchange was not worth it absolutely.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Because there were much more questions with weapons than with the level of training. composition

Seriously?
That is, when several Finnish battalions cut our division into boilers, and the divisional commander and regimental commanders just look at it - is this normal? The Finns are building a barricade on the road a couple of kilometers from the divisional artillery regiment - and no one even itches to cover the construction site with artillery fire.
Problems with technology pale against the background of personnel training. The rifle corps, reinforced by a heavy tank brigade, was unable to break through two missile defense units with a pair of machine-gun "millionaires" in each. Given that a pair of T-28s for each would be enough to block the bunker.
Do you know what is the saddest thing? The fact that after a month and a half the same compounds broke through the LM in the same place. What prevented in December 1939 from bringing up all the OM and BM artillery available in the LVO to the Summa sector? What prevented, back in December 1939, from dragging 14 "naval cannons to Kannelyarvi, which were based not somewhere, but only on the other side of the Gulf of Finland? They had the same technique.
And the lack of preparation prevented them. Those very month and a half of the war - two weeks of fighting and a month of training "in combat".

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

And in this regard - the Finnish front gave much less than the same Spain and the battles with the Japanese - because our army praised the expansive and impetuous tactical school of action.

The Finnish Front gave the Red Army the end of the Voroshilov era. And the arrival of Tymoshenko, who annoyed the troops with combat training. The era of the "combined company surrenders for the regiment" exercises ended - everyone went out into the field. In 1940, a full complement rifle division forced Amur on exercises - for the first time in the entire existence of the Far Eastern Front. What has the front been doing for the previous 20 years? Judging by Hasan, he scribbled reports on the steady growth of military and political training. And it rolled.
It was the SFV that opened the eyes of the leadership to the absolute unpreparedness of the army for war. No, not on individual shortcomings that will undoubtedly be eliminated (as it was believed based on the results of the X-G and the Polish campaign) - but on the systemic unpreparedness of the entire army. For where the reserves did not come from - they all showed the same thing at the front.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

For all this, we got territories, a significant part of which we soon lost - well, and the understanding that five-turret tanks with a bad chassis are not cake.

T-35 did not participate in SFV. But the T-28 fought there, yes ...

[Knell wardenheart]

Against the Japanese, we acted much more professionally - probably what you are writing about is just the specifics of the extremely difficult terrain of operations, overcrowding of our forces and inadequate subordination. The very fact that we tried to solve problems with heavy tanks on such a terrain - while having more than powerful aircraft, the amount of ammunition for them, the largest artillery fleet in Eastern Europe - this raises big questions for me, much more to the competence of strategic planning of this operation rather than command on the spot. It is not entirely clear what our aviation intelligence was doing on the eve of this "war", if you start a war with a neighbor, all its fortifications must be known and there must be means to suppress them. Again, this is strategic planning.
Taking a fortified line of defense head-on - oh yeah, that's just the pinnacle of military tactics! What instructions came from above, and so they acted. At that time in the Kremlin, "experts in the civil war" were confident in the level of their own skill, but the skill turned out to be not very good - therefore, of course, everything was written off retroactively to poor commanders (as it was before every time).

I pointed out earlier not only the futility of this war from the point of view of improving our army - but here, of course, you can, if you wish, find peas and cling to them - they say they sharpened, tested, stuffed their hand, corrected the charter, etc. Okay - let's say you convinced me that 130k corpses and 200 + k disabled people before the Great War with a completely different enemy - were worth these peas of experience. In the end, we have always had the habit of learning from a lot of blood and big losses, and not just in an armchair-theoretical silence, like most of progressive humanity ..
But there was no sense in the question of the meaning of these conquests. It was already clear who we were going to face - and on what front. Germany did not hide its eastern aspirations and it was clear that it would strike in the European direction, and not through some Scandinavian jungle and swamps. And what do we decide? Move the border at best in a fourfold direction (Germany-Japan-Turkey). Pushed back - with big losses. They became Hitler's ally and took it back. That is, from a strategic point of view, we only lost people and exacerbated the situation.

I may be wrong about the combat use of the T-35, however: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%9C%D0%9A_(%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD% D0% BA)
A certain amount of this monstrous technique was tested on this particular front, the tests were not great to say the least!

[stalkerwalker]

The T-35 did not even come close to the Finnish border. This monster on tracks could only move on hard surface with a minimum slope. He wouldn't have made it to the front line.

[Knell wardenheart]

T-35 - weight 58 tons.
SMK - weight 55 tons.
T-100 - weight 58 tons.

They managed to push the last two on the front line, contrary to your ideas). Another thing is that there was no sense in this, these tasks had to be solved by other means.

[stalkerwalker]

Will we compare the specific ground pressure?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

We acted much more professionally against the Japanese

If. Nobody just wanted to darken the victory debriefing.

In the August offensive, the 6th, 11th tank, 7th, 8th, 9th motorized armored brigades were involved. A total of 8 tank battalions of two tank brigades plus one single tank battalion for three motorized armored brigades. So, the 11th tank brigade at the beginning of the offensive was torn in half - two battalions support the advance of the troops of the northern group, two battalions - the southern group. The 6th tank brigade, firstly, was torn apart - one of its tank battalions leaves the command of the army group as a reserve - the other three battalions are delayed at the crossing and have no time to start the offensive. In total, five tank battalions may be involved at the beginning of the offensive - two in the northern and three in the southern group.
Further, the course of the operation: with a depth of operation of 20-25 km in the first day, the southern group advanced about 8-10 km, the northern group - 4 km, found the Japanese stronghold on the way (the very same height of Fuy - “Finger”, Remizov’s height is a different height) and instead of flinging it around with mobile troops, blocking with infantry and moving on, he began fiercely, furiously, frantically banging his head on his strong point. The second day: reserves were introduced at the front of the northern group (the same battalion of the 6th tank brigade and 9th motorized armored brigade), the furious penetration of the wall with the forehead continues with unrelenting power. The southern group goes to the "meeting point" and takes a seat to smoke and recover. Accordingly, at night, the Japanese begin to withdraw troops and roll out equipment from the semicircle with battalions - with success. Finally, only on August 23 — on the fourth day of the encirclement operation with an operation depth of 25 km — did the Japanese stronghold at the Finger height be finished, and the Japanese troops in the central sector of the front fell into a more or less complete encirclement.

© D. Shein
Result?

Comrade Stalin ... As expected, there were no divisions in the encirclement, the enemy either managed to withdraw the main forces, or rather, there were no large forces in this area for a long time, and a specially trained garrison was sitting, which is now completely destroyed. ..

© NPO comrade Voroshilov.
And I still don't remember about Bain-Tsagan. We are lucky that Komatsubara decided to evacuate the bridgehead. And if not?

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

It is not entirely clear what our aviation intelligence was doing on the eve of this "war"

The same intelligence, in which the unfit were written off in fighter and bomber aviation?

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

if you start a war with a neighbor, all his fortifications must be known and there must be means to suppress them.

All questions are for Meretskov. He had an album of fortifications of the Karelian Isthmus.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Taking a fortified line of defense head-on - oh yeah, it's just the pinnacle of military tactics!

An attempt to bypass the LM cost us at least three divisions.

[Knell wardenheart]

Zhukov described these events in a slightly different way .. and if we talk about head-on fruitless attacks, we didn’t get rid of this tactic until 1944. The Finnish war could “show” a lot, but it could hardly teach competent action by the troops - not the same there was a front and a setting. Subsequent events showed that at more grandiose events we learn with difficulty - we have always had a hard time debriefing our and others' flights.

Questions of attitude to aerial reconnaissance are questions of a strategic nature, that is, the seriousness of this topic should have been taken care of at the top. The Germans were concerned. I think it is not worth attributing this jamb to the insufficient training and archaism of our military.

You see, breaking through or bypassing fortifications is cool, but it's pretty primitive in terms of achieving results. The USSR had quite an abundant air fleet, with long-range bombers as well. We could force the Finns to peace through the maximum disorganization of their rear, with the successive incapacitation of an array of their key enterprises, transport hubs, control facilities, etc. What is now called "bombing in the Stone Age" - we had the resources for this. The way the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan acted later - we seemed to have bypassed this strategic idea, we had to solve it literally "on horseback and with a sword." This issue was solved again - at the very top. Could Stalin himself have learned something from the Finnish War? I do not think so .

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Zhukov described these events in a slightly different way ..

Comrade Zhukov, as the commander of the 57th USC, is an interested person in the issue of the battles on Khalkhin Gol. Believing him is like believing Manstein's memoirs.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

The USSR had quite an abundant air fleet, with long-range bombers as well. We could force the Finns to peace through the maximum disorganization of their rear, with the successive incapacitation of an array of their key enterprises, transport hubs, control facilities, etc. What is now called "bombing in the Stone Age" - we had the resources for this.

Are you offering to do terror bombing? Do you remember how the raid on Helsinki on 30.11.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX ended, when ours mistakenly bombed residential areas?

Do you want to get instead of a moral embargo and expressions of concern a complete embargo and an accelerated Allied landing in Narvik?
And we will still be very lucky if Stalin's falcons limit themselves only to the Finns - and do not accidentally bombard Sweden (as they managed to do in Ingushetia).
Just to understand - what is the level of training of the crews of the BA of the Red Army Air Force for 1939:

The next day [26.12.1939/21/3] their colleagues from the 30st regiment "distinguished themselves": XNUMX aircraft lost orientation and deviated to the east, took the Gruzino station near Leningrad for the Finnish one and dropped XNUMX bombs on it, not a single one (!! !) of which did not reach the goal.

© P. Aptekar
From such garbage, little ones: not only did they bomb on a completely different target (and their own), they also missed thirty times.
In addition, it was in the SFV that our Air Force suddenly discovered that without cover from fighters, our BA and DBA are flying targets. And the combat radius of the main fighter of the Red Army Air Force in 1939 was 150-160 km.

[Knell wardenheart]

In other words, you admit that one of the two main instruments of war at that time was completely unprepared for us to wage one. However, we either did not have the slightest idea about this, or deliberately got into an indistinct military campaign - having a similar state of affairs. The issue of bombing accuracy is a matter of technical perfection (what I pointed out) and the issue of training flight personnel, who were personnel and (in theory) had to go through Spain and battles with the Japanese (as a maximum) by the time of the limited Finnish campaign. at least go through the "type of chic preparation" of our highly praised courses. This is already the fruit of "effective activity" of the highest level, and they did not cope with their task. All this has a very distant relation to the dampness and inexperience of the command staff, which they refer to - this is the competence of the effectiveness of state planning. If our aviation was not ready for a war in the territories adjacent to us - neither from the technical, nor from the personnel point of view, nor from the point of view of intelligence - this only confirms my thesis about the stupidity and senselessness of that war in those conditions (first) and about competence the highest strategic management of the country, including in matters of preparation for war (second). I can’t imagine where the guilt or the inexperience of the command staff was here, and how the ground massacre during the assault on the fortified defense line could change the sad state of affairs described above, from which we absolutely also shook off after the beginning of the Second World War.

As for air raids as a way of solving the strategic tasks of withdrawal from the war - this is not my proposal, it was the technological experience of the entire Second World War that offered. If there is a hitch with the grinding of enemy manpower or problems arise with overcoming defensive lines at the cost of this in their manpower - all parties to the conflict have come to this. Given the modest demographic potential of Finland - it would be enough to break its transport and industrial capabilities - there is also no news. If you think that the competence or technical ability of our aviation was not enough for this, it is not at all clear to me for what purpose we got into this war and what we wanted to "test". Nevertheless, we worked in Helsinki with "Molotov breadbaskets" - just the same intended for terror among the civilian population - I don't think that there would be any madman who would decide to load the planes to destroy the industry with cluster munitions with small-sized aerial bombs. That is, our aviation was initially incorrect strategic setting actions.

About 70 Finnish aircraft were qualified as "fighter produced after 1930".
If Soviet intelligence at the time of planning a military operation was not able to determine their airfields and cover all of this, we should have continued to train on the insurgent peasants, because this is a complete loss for the volume of our strategic aviation and war planning in principle. But even without that - you write that these "forces" would be a problem for our long-range aviation - seriously? 70 fighters of different companies without own production of spare parts for them - would be a problem? With such "problems," all the more, they do not start wars, even in much more strategically hot spots than the border with the super-dangerous Finland of the 1939-40 model.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

In other words, you admit that one of the two main instruments of war at that time was completely unprepared for us to wage one. However, we either did not have the slightest idea about it, or deliberately got into an indistinct military campaign - having a similar state of affairs.

By the end of 1939, the top military-political leadership had already begun to suspect that in the Red Army, in fact, not everything is so. as it is drawn in the reports - but there was no certainty yet. It was the Soviet-Finnish war that broke the veil.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

The issue of bombing accuracy is a matter of technical perfection (as I pointed out) and the issue of training flight personnel, who were personnel and (in theory) had to go through Spain and battles with the Japanese (as a maximum) by the time of the limited Finnish campaign. at least go through the "type of chic preparation" of our highly praised courses.

A tiny fraction of the RKKA Air Force crews passed through Spain and the Far East. The Red Army Air Force on Khalkhin Gol is a little more than 530 aircraft of all types.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Nevertheless, we worked in Helsinki with "Molotov breadbaskets" - just the same intended for terror among the civilian population

The horrors you are telling. Since when did cluster bombs intended for the destruction of open area "soft" targets (infantry, cavalry, trucks, aircraft) become intended for terror against civilians?

[Knell wardenheart]

To start a war with a neighbor whose population is 70 times less than yours and who is not in direct alliance with the country's potential main opponents is stupid because it seemed that the fruits of collectivization and industrialization went wrong in the military-industrial complex and the army? Super, this is a really powerful target.

That is, according to your logic, 10 crews were needed to kill Finnish aviation on airfields and destroy key industries in a week?

It is for this cute device that it got its memorable name.

I am pleased that we went into the plane when the politically motivated massacre began to be described in this way.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

But there was no sense in the question of the meaning of these conquests. It was already clear who we were going to face - and on what front. Germany did not hide its eastern aspirations and it was clear that it would strike in the European direction, and not through some Scandinavian jungle and swamps. And what do we decide? Move the border at best in a fourfold direction (Germany-Japan-Turkey).

Well, if for you the second largest city in the USSR, one of the largest industrial centers, where half of the country's tank factories are located, this is a four-fold direction ...
To understand the full depth of the fifth point near Leningrad, it is enough to say that it was 20 km from Kronstadt to the border. From the center of Leningrad to the border - 30 km. At KaUR in the most dangerous direction, even a normal foreground was not equipped - there was no place.

[Knell wardenheart]

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

But there was no sense in the question of the meaning of these conquests. It was already clear who we were going to face - and on what front. Germany did not hide its eastern aspirations and it was clear that it would strike in the European direction, and not through some Scandinavian jungle and swamps. And what do we decide? Move the border at best in a fourfold direction (Germany-Japan-Turkey).

Well, if for you the second largest city in the USSR, one of the largest industrial centers, where half of the country's tank factories are located, this is a four-fold direction ...
To understand the full depth of the fifth point near Leningrad, it is enough to say that it was 20 km from Kronstadt to the border. From the center of Leningrad to the border - 30 km. At KaUR in the most dangerous direction, even a normal foreground was not equipped - there was no place.

And once again - what exactly would the Finns do to Leningrad with their very modest resources?
The years of the civil war were no longer in the yard - the USSR had enough weapons and organization.
The Finns had two options - to open their border for an attack from its side by larger foreign forces - for this, these larger forces would have to first be killed in long logistic wilds, somewhere to load, sail, unload, accumulate somewhere, it would be necessary in advance to carry out an array of engineering work in these gloomy places -> ALL of this would have been revealed at one stage or another ahead of time and with all that it implies - a massive air raid on the concentration of enemy troops. It could have worked in the European direction - in Finland all these things would not have worked well. Having once invested in not knowing what defensive line from the side of the Soviet-Finnish border, we could practically close this issue. Or did the Finns have an option - to act on their own - and with what? 64 light tanks? An army of 250 thousand? There was no fighter fleet of Finnish aviation - they could not cover these forces, they could not supply them, they would be suicide bombers. The Finnish navy would not have been able to support these forces at all. This option would not have led the Finns to greater success than the one they had during the Second World War. Yes, Finland could open its airfields to a third party - but excuse me, to resist this we would have to move the border much further, or even completely liquidate Finland as a state.

There were no problems. And this direction was really a quarter-degree - tell me please, what forces did we keep at the beginning of the Second World War in the Far East? What forces did we hold in the west? In the Caucasian direction, what did we have? And finally - what we had set aside for the protection of the borders from Finland. It was impossible to underestimate Japan, Poland, Germany, even Turkey, but to overestimate the possibilities and degree of danger of the Finns for the USSR of 1939-1940 model, it was pure paranoia.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

And once again - what exactly would the Finns do to Leningrad with their very modest resources?

The same as in real life. Only they would not start from the new border, but from the Sestra River. And it's not a fact that KaUR would have had time to prepare for the Finnish strike - in real life we ​​had more than two months for this.
Let me remind you that in peacetime, even the clearing of the shelling sectors was not carried out in the UR LS - these measures were related to the "threatened period."
And most importantly - why are you considering Finland alone? If Finland decided to attack, it would be only as part of a bloc (by the way, this option was the main one in Soviet military planning).

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

The Finns had two options - to open their border for an attack from its side by larger foreign forces - for this, these larger forces would have to first be killed in the long logistic wilds, somewhere to load, sail, unload, accumulate somewhere, it would be necessary in advance to carry out an array of engineering work in these bleak places

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Or the Finns had an option - to act on their own - and with what? 64 light tanks? An army of 250 thousand?

And there was a third option - to attack the USSR at a time when its forces would be diverted in a different direction. As it happened in real life.
And then you can forget about the overwhelming superiority in forces. What is the use of having two mechanized corps in the LVO, if one of them is fighting near Pskov, and the other, in the midst of battles on the Kar. Isthmus, has to be transferred to the Luga direction?

The military planning of the USSR in the 30s was based on just such a scenario - only there was the "cordon sanitaire" as allies of the Finns. No attacks alone - Finland attacks the USSR on the northern flank of a large front, in company with Poland and Romania (or even Hungary). And while the main forces of the Red Army are occupied in the central and southern sectors of the front, the Finns have rather good chances of success in battles.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

And finally - what we had set aside for the protection of the borders from Finland.

Three armies. In total, about 360 thousand people took part in the battles in the Finnish direction.

[Knell wardenheart]

Good - our actions did lead to the fact that Finland attacked us as part of a bloc! The worst thing, for the sake of which we muddied this whole operation and lost 200k + people, happened.
Were the Germans able to adequately use the Finnish direction? No. But in this war we lost as many people practically as this most unfortunate Finland could have put up. I don't think it was worth it. Now, if until the end of the Second World War the "beaten Finns" would have sat there across the new border and did not dare to think - then yes, I would agree with you that it was justified.

Before the war, only people with very great paranoia or imagination could consider Finland in the gentle embrace of Adolf Aloizovich - the Finns had very close ties with the Swedes and Norwegians - and there they would have bargained with Germany with something strategic, and they would have seen some German parts on their territory voluntarily. Their economic partners and their own monarchist-parliamentary elites would not understand this. And only the USSR, all the imperialists looked the same, and every whisper across the border was seen as an epic conspiracy. And as a result, we did create this conspiracy, by our own efforts.

Any plan with an attack by the Finns in the pre-war performance was a madman's delirium! A substantial share of the Finnish budget was spent on building a defensive line, defensive specifically from us, darlings. They did not invest in blitzkrieg tools - transport mechanization, tanks, airplanes, automatic weapons - in their army they were completely unsuitable for attacking us, and their industry was not ready to radically change this situation. It was already during the "winter war" that we forced them to improvise effectively, they copied our PCA and studied our tanks - before the war they had a clearly pronounced purely defensive army. We were really strained by certain bloc agreements between Finns / Estonia / Latvia - but these were extremely small-scale negotiations of a defensive nature between neighboring countries. To inflate an epic conspiracy out of this is a trifling matter for the USSR of those years, where such conspiracies were inflated once or twice.

You know, it's great when you keep three armies on the border of a state with 3.5 million inhabitants - and you are still wildly afraid that they are weaving intrigues behind the defensive line - they are preparing to attack the First Socialist State. Well, I don’t know, these tank armies, mechanized and rifle corps will defeat them on their snowmobiles and go to plunder Leningrad like the Vikings! But only in our country could, having such an alignment, invent all this nonsense, justifying the need for a preventive attack and everything else. One to one the same story that Adolf Aloizovich wove - but only he is bad, and we are just right - for this you are drowning now, dear. You will not convince me that there was a real need for this war, and that we did not get any benefit from it, perhaps also. The figures and actions of the players tell me the opposite and I see no reason in our undertaking, it was an indicative, ill-conceived paranoid attack of an already over-militarized state.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Were the Germans able to adequately take advantage of the Finnish direction? Not.

As much as they could. Ours had to pull apart the main force of the LVO - the 1st MK in order to prop up the Kandalaksha direction. As a result, the 1st MK was forced to engage in battle with the forces of GA "Sever", not having the best 1st TD in training and manning.
In general, the word "miracle" is best suited to the results of the 1941 battles in the Finnish direction. Miraculously, the Germans were stopped in the Murmansk direction. Miraculously, the Germans and Finns were stopped in the Kandalaksha direction. And by a huge miracle they stopped the Finns north of Ladoga. If it were not for the leapfrog from the 163rd Infantry Division, then the Zaladoga ring could well have closed around Leningrad.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Before the war, it was only possible for people with very great paranoia or imagination to view Finland in the gentle embrace of Adolf Aloizovich.

Or with a good knowledge of history and remembering on whose bayonets independence was brought to the Finns.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Any plan with an attack by the Finns in the pre-war performance was a madman's delirium!

Just for reference - in 1935, there were 0 (in words - zero) personnel rifle divisions in the entire LVO. All the forces of the LVO are 4 mixed divisions (15-30% of the strength, two regiments of a territorial type per division). Territories' combat readiness period is 2 months from the moment of mobilization.
Do you still find the Finnish attack on the USSR (along with Poland and Romania) crazy?

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

It was already during the "winter war" that we made them improvise effectively, they copied our PPSh and studied our tanks

Yeah ... in 1931 they copied the PPSh sample of 1941.
I've always known that Finns have a time machine - that's why they are so leisurely. Why rush if you can stretch the time.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

You know, it's great when you keep three armies on the border of a state with 3.5 million inhabitants

You are very loose with time - five years in advance, five years ago. There were three armies on the border with the Finns in 1941. You asked about 1941:

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

There were no problems. And this direction was really a quarter-degree - please tell me what forces we held at the beginning of the Second World War in the Far East ? What forces did we hold in the west? In the Caucasian direction, what did we have? And finally - that we had set aside for the protection of the borders from Finland.

[Knell wardenheart]

The very essence of our discussion amuses me - although the topic is far from funny.
I tell you - Finland was not a problem for us and was not actively involved in becoming one. You tell me - this is because we acted preventively! Otherwise they would be (and further down the list). Well, I tell you, but after all, exactly what happened, in the end, which we should have prevented and on which put a bunch of people. And why, I ask, is all this? And you deduce to me that all this was done in order for a miracle to happen! That is, we didn’t work so well at the cost of such sacrifices, but the enemy unanimously defeated and we found time to stop him.

Do you think we would not arrange the Winter War - the Finns would have acted better and more impudently? Until now, there are no documents confirming the conspiracy of Finnish imperialism with the imperialists of Romania - Poland, etc. In general, it's funny to somehow talk about the alliance of the Finns with the Poles in the context of the end of 1939, given what Poland was like.
According to your logic, we could also be registered as Germany's latent allies - because of the "Sealed Carriage" in the distant past or because of the technical cooperation between us and the Weimar Republic.

You can dig into some historical details and military movements for as long as you like - during the Second World War, even despite the active pressure from the GG, neither Japan nor Turkey attacked us - countries are much more powerful and with much greater interests in us than Finland. You prove to me that you would certainly have attacked - why?) Because you traded with Hitler? So after all, we also bargained with him, and the negotiations were even about our joining the Axis - but did not join! This is not an argument to view the Finns as a threat during this period because of their politics.

[Octopus]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

The very essence of our discussion amuses me - although the topic is far from funny.

You just do not quite understand the essence of the discussion.

The stupid Epishev timidly hid the activities of the USSR in the early years of WWII in the cliffs. WWII for Soviet historians began on June 22 at exactly 4 o'clock.

But Russian propaganda, on the contrary, boldly gets it. The task of such figures, including, alas, your interlocutor, is to substantiate that all the liberation campaigns of the Red Army in 39-41 are a) expedient from a military point of view, b) corresponds to the real political politician of those years.

Therefore, his arguments, despite his high erudition, seem to be somewhat contradictory. And the idea that the USSR created itself a catastrophe in 41 with its own hands is categorically unacceptable for him.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

I pointed out earlier not only the futility of this war from the point of view of improving our army - but here, of course, you can, if you wish, find peas and cling to them - they say they honed them, tried them out, stuffed their hands, corrected the charter, etc.

Uh-huh ... peas. As a result of the "victory" in the SFV, the unsinkable "first red officer" - Comrade Voroshilov, flew from his post, under whom combat training was reduced to writing beautiful reports that had very little relation to reality.
If it weren't for SFV, I would have met the Germans in 1941 Voroshilov's army:

By the time of acceptance and delivery of the People's Commissariat of Defense there was no operational plan for the war, not developed and there are no operational plans, both general and private.
The General Staff has no data on the state of border cover... The decisions of the military councils of districts, armies and the front on this issue are unknown to the General Staff.

The People’s Commissariat does not have an accurately established actual strength of the Red Army at the time of admission. Due to the fault of the Main Directorate of the Red Army, personnel records are in an extremely neglected state.
By arrangement of troops - there are no provisions on the management of units (regiments), formations (divisions and brigades)... The regulations on the military economy are outdated and require revision. The provision on the field command of troops has not been developed.

The People's Commissariat of Defense has not yet eliminated the shortcomings of the mobilization plan, which were revealed during the partial mobilization in September 1939.
(...)
Among the military-obliged stock is 3 untrained people. The People’s Commissariat of Defense has no training plan for them.

It was established that annual graduations from military schools did not provide the necessary reserves for the growth of the army and the formation of reserves.
The quality of the training of command personnel is low, especially in the platoon-company unit, in which up to 68% have only short-term 6-month training for the course of junior lieutenant.
The training of command personnel in military schools is unsatisfactory.

The main shortcomings in the training of troops are:
1) The low training of the middle command staff in the company link is a platoon and the especially weak training of the junior command staff.
2) Weak tactical training in all types of combat and reconnaissance, especially small units.
3) Poor practical field training of troops and their inability to perform what is required in a combat situation.
4) The extremely weak training of the combat arms on the battlefield: the infantry cannot cling to and break away from the fire shaft, the artillery can not support the tanks, the aviation can not interact with the ground troops.
5) The troops are not trained in skiing.
6) The use of camouflage worked out poorly.
7) The troops have not worked out fire control.
8) The troops are not trained in attacking fortified areas, building and overcoming barriers and forcing rivers.

Many conventions are allowed in the combat training of troops; troops are not trained in an environment close to combat reality, in relation to the requirements of theaters of military operations.

the infantry is weaker than all other combat arms;
infantry armament lags behind modern combat requirements and is not provided with mortars and machine guns.

The organization of intelligence is one of the weakest areas in the work of the People’s Commissariat of Defense. There is no organized intelligence and systematic receipt of data on foreign armies.

The air defense of troops and guarded points is in a state of complete neglect. The current state of air defense does not meet modern requirements.

Etc., etc.
And with all this we meet the Wehrmacht on June 22, 1941.

[Knell wardenheart]

So-so argumentative about Voroshilov - they stopped the Germans only near Moscow, having lost an absolutely obscene number of people in prisoners and killed, having missed many large industries. centers, having lost most of the aviation and tank fleet. We learned how, thanks to the Finns!

The shortcomings you mentioned repeatedly shone on the pre-war exercises - no conclusions were drawn from them even when they were seen right in front of their noses.

And finally - usually when such a heap of jambs looms - the main jammer is always at the very top.

The country gets into a war with an adversary who, according to your logic, is super dangerous, behind whom you see either Romania or Hungary or the Germans - this war is being fought against a well-fortified defense line in difficult conditions and mostly ground forces - and all this without having a damn, on the hands of the size of the army and the mobilization plan?) And according to your own words - do you seriously see at least a drop of logic in this? We preemptively attack the outpost of world imperialism without the ability and purpose to roll out its penny industry and penny aviation, but we mean that all this must somehow confuse the plans of its potential allies in a completely different direction!

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Because there were much more questions with weapons than with the level of training. composition

nonsense. Failure of logistics, management, combat training, incompetence of command personnel. Those same "clay feet".

than the same Spain and battles with the Japanese

not a correct comparison at all.

[Knell wardenheart]

Tell me dear - did Guderian need three military conflicts to give birth to his ideas?
As far as I remember from his "Attention - Tanks!" it was work at the headquarters, in the exercises, theorist, etc. This dude did not let thousands of people into the minced meat to test the competent use of technology - he studied other people's experience and came up with his own.
Was there an exercise in the USSR? There were military courses in the USSR? Special literature? Access to the labors of foreign military specialists? Maybe our conditions for preparation were worse than at the junction of the Weimar Republic and early Hitler? Maybe the Japanese trained their carrier-based aircraft on ducks? Or maybe Britain flew its fighters to Spain? NO. Sorry, at our com. the composition had ALL opportunities for competent work and preparation. There was plenty of time and resources. Instead, they preferred to drown each other in feces, scribble denunciations, and measure themselves against issues of political preparation and loyalty. Could this trend be changed by a small but bloody war with a non-modern army? NO. If in peacetime we did NOT know how to work on a theory and to perfect it, if we had kilometers of rubbish in our charter, then even after that little has changed. We did NOT imagine the appearance of modern war and did NOT try to test it - we did NOT see the power of aviation and did not understand that a light tank is a relic of an interbellum and a super heavy tank is a potential pile of metal after a mine or an air raid, as we were, we remained archaic in matters of intelligence and analysts. Finland practically did not teach us anything from what we suffered most savagely in the initial period of the Second World War. As the "glorious heroes of the Guards in Spain" sat in high positions, so they sat almost until Stalingrad, the same Kulik for example.

As for the equipment - oh yes, we bombed the masterpiece during the Soviet-Finnish war - the KV-2 tank. It was very useful to us in the future! With an eternally jammed turret, a completely horse caliber for dealing with anything / anyone other than stationary targets and an overloaded undercarriage, it was just a royal gift for the mobile units of the Germans. But then - what a handsome man he was in the fight against pillboxes! An excellent example of hammering a bolt on a technique is just those "questions" about which I am talking. But the Finns did not have sensible tanks - and we could not properly "assess" how good or bad our designs are. And we spent resources on many miracles as a result of this war!

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Tell me dear - did Guderian need three military conflicts to give birth to his ideas?

but what does Guderian have to do with it? I do not understand why your lengthy speech? I said that the Winter War was a demonstration of the incompetence of the Soviet command staff at all levels and the systemic imperfection of the Red Army as a whole. This is an elementary statement of fact. Even the passionate apologists of the "indestructible and legendary" will not deny this.

[Knell wardenheart]

And why was it necessary to go into a war for which we were so unprepared, in the direction on which a radically dangerous enemy was not foreseen? So we came to a simple and logical thought for which I am typing letters here for the second day!
People here tell me "because Finland was dangerous" - no, it wasn't. They say, “so that our command gains experience and draw conclusions,” no, they didn’t have enough experience and didn’t, and the front was not suitable for this, and the enemy was not the same. Of course, we have acquired the experience of the winter war - well, have we fallen from Mars to our territory? We didn’t have this experience before and people didn’t freeze crawling in the snow during exercises?

So, WHY did we need this war with an archaic defense army, disgusting landscape, and even in the cold season? The Marquis de Sade would definitely approve of this, but I do not see a strategically intelligible meaning in this! Of course, later they found it in hindsight - every rubbish that was done in the USSR settled down, we adopted this glorious tradition.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Camerad, I just challenged your thesis that the professionalism of the military was at the level, and the technology, they say, was not to hell.

[Knell wardenheart]

I didn’t claim that the military were at the level - I pointed out that, using the example of the Germans, we see that it is possible to give birth to effective military tactics and interaction in rear work and training grounds (which is why I brought you Guderian). But theoretical developments in technology are such a thing, and even more so our tanks did not benefit from the Finnish campaign in terms of their use - but there was also an obvious one from the fight against the Japanese (if we compare). I am now in the context of what we encountered in the Second World War and not some abstract constructions that the tank is needed as a mobile means to combat pillboxes (as we looked at heavy tanks). Do you understand? I defend the position that this war could give very little of what our technology needed due to the specifics of the front, scale and enemy, and could not bring our command personnel to a new level of strategic thinking, due to the extremely low analytical culture as such.

[Knell wardenheart]

I pointed out the priority of the development of technology over the experience of the command personnel for the reason that in the event of a massive offensive on our country, we would inevitably be forced to go on the defensive (contrary to the delusional ideas of that time) - and then actually act from defense - which is impossible without good technology and a good strategic plan. All the shoals of organization, supply and interaction are much more calmly experienced in defense than in fruitless attempts at an offensive with the subsequent abandonment of raw equipment in neutral. Initially, we lost a lot of people trying to squeeze the maximum out of the defective pre-war plan of reaction to the outbreak of the war, inadequate headquarters instructions and the use of a crude or inappropriate degree of threat of technology against superior forces during the period of the enemy's strategic initiative and in areas of his complex superiority.

[Sergey Medvedev]

Another grant eater was found. He equated Stalin with Hitler, and Finland with Czechoslovakia.
And he didn’t lie very much, He didn’t even lie, but kept silent about one fact. On the proposal of the USSR to Finland to conclude a military alliance. But the Finnish leadership has already decided everything for itself that it will fight the USSR. And so it turned out.

[Bagatur]

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia entered into an alliance with the USSR ... Fini understood what it means!

[Sergey Medvedev]

Quote: bagatura

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia entered into an alliance with the USSR ... Fini understood what it means!

Negotiations with Finland began in 1938, and all sorts of pacts-shmakty in 1939. Are the Finns clairvoyant? Or you do not know nifiga?

[Bagatur]

Started, led but not finished! The USSR showed that it was necessary to wait if the Manerheim line was betrayed.

[Sergey Medvedev]

Quote: bagatura

Started, led but not finished! The USSR showed that it was necessary to wait if the Manerheim line was betrayed.

Don't twist your tail. The USSR offered the Finns a military alliance. They themselves chose the losing side.

[Undecim]

In my opinion, the situation for the Finnish side looked quite unambiguous: the Moscow negotiations are preparations for the annexation of Finland, and if you agree to Moscow's terms, then soon all of Finland will become a Soviet protectorate, a Soviet republic, or whatever they call it.
Surprisingly, but this time Verkhoturov is right - the goal of the Winter War was precisely the annexation of Finland to the USSR. And the government for the new Soviet Finland under the leadership of Kuusinen in Terijoki had already been prepared. And if the Finns hadn’t balked at the Karelian Isthmus, Finland would have shared the fate of the Baltic limitrophes.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Undecim

Surprisingly, but this time Verkhoturov is right - the goal of the Winter War was precisely the annexation of Finland to the USSR. And the government for the new Soviet Finland under the leadership of Kuusinen in Terijoki had already been prepared. And if the Finns hadn’t balked at the Karelian Isthmus, Finland would have shared the fate of the Baltic limitrophes.

And what prevented the USSR from fulfilling this goal? Not in the winter of 1940, but in the summer - when were the guarantors of Finland's independence driven across France?

[Engineer]

And what prevented the USSR from fulfilling this goal?

Perhaps the unpleasant feeling that the Finns "can repeat"?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Engineer

Perhaps the unpleasant feeling that the Finns "can repeat"?

What exactly? A heroic murder about the Red Army? They no longer had a Mannerheim line.

[Engineer]

There has never been a heroic killing of the Finns about the Red Army. There is nothing to repeat.
There is no Mannerheim Line, but there are many natural barriers on which bloodletting can continue. And then there's the Finnish forests and swamps from where you can keep the database.
The Soviet leaders had something to think about.

[stalkerwalker]

As, however, and in the fall of 1944.
Would set a goal would be the Finnish SSR. It just would be no worse than Bandera. The local schutzkor still knocks at the heart of the Finnish Klaas.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Finland was spared how! They acted wisely that they did not join them. Have a permanent wound. Not from Finland itself - this wound would give reason to have something against Soviet power ...
People there are very stubborn, very stubborn. There, a minority would be very dangerous.

(c) V.M. Molotov. 1974
))

[Kwas]

But the USSR did not want to fight properly either. If you really wanted to - what was it worth to bring two battleships to Helsinki, or to arrange a raid of 200-400 TB-3? And that's it ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Kwas

If they really wanted to - what was it worth to bring two battleships to Helsinki?

Where would they stay. For the Finns got the Russian coastal defense in Finland in full force, which they then improved and strengthened.
This is, for example, the 12 "tower battery of Kuivasaari:

Our happiness is that damned royal regime © did not have time to finish building even stronger 14 "batteries.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

The thesis of Finland's hypothetical neutrality is more than dubious.

[bandabas]

And they still remember Russian. Comes in handy.

[Bagatur]

The population of the USSR is a little 200 million, Finlandiyaini is 3 million people! An example from Czechoslovakia and the Baltics in the eye ... Correctly fought! Otherwise, a 16 republic and now they were the very poor fellows like the whole of Eastern Europe.

[place]

Quote: bagatura

... We fought correctly! Otherwise, a 16 republic and now they were the very poor fellows like the whole of Eastern Europe.

------------------

They fought not quite right. They should also have threatened your ancestors, then now there would be at least one "strange" less. But we didn’t manage! And it's a shame.

BTW: Eastern Europe sucked a lot of juices from the USSR in the postwar years. And therefore- "poor things" they were never..... They lived well in that post-war period, when the Finns had to rely only on themselves.

[Bagatur]

Eastern Europe did not beg the USSR to build communism! They wanted an empire, a map in red, they say, pay for it! The United States also restored Western Europe ... Is there a difference?

[place]

Quote: bagatura

Bagatur
Today, 14: 27

--------------

The Finns were always Nazis and still remain. And therefore, it is your ancestors that they would soak with the greatest pleasure ...

[deddem]

Quote: Sugar Honeyovich

Moreover, the first week of the war the Finns tried to attack

So after all, we now know that the USSR is a force, but then, judging by the documents of those times, the opinion of the form "a colossus with feet of clay" was quite common.
Which was actively supported by the emigration with its tales about the oppressed people, who only dreamed of throwing off the commissars and the Council of Deputies.
And, sadly, information on the political processes of the 30s, which created an illusion among outside observers that there really was a vast and organized underground in the USSR, including the military.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

Quote: deddem

So after all, we now know that the USSR is a force, but then, judging by the documents of those times, the opinion of the form "a colossus with feet of clay" was quite common.

I’ll say more: Secretary of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Leger said that if little Finland rebuffs such a monster as the USSR, then France, if something happens, will cope with Germany once or twice.

[Sugar Honeyovich]

What and speech.

[Zug]

Finland, as an enemy for the USSR in the 30s, has remained with its desire to include Eastern Karelia in the structure. You don't have to be an idiot to understand that what Finland failed in 20, they would not have tried to take revenge in 40, even if there was no war of 39-40 years. Five campaigns in Karelia and the demands of the Finns in Berlin to give them the Kola Peninsula left no chances for leaving the old borders in 39. Finland lost a lot more land and enterprises as a result of the Winter War, The appetite of the USSR increased in comparison with the proposals of November 1939. If they had given back what Stalin asked, they would have lost much less. In general, after Finland's intervention in Karelia and joint hostilities with the British and White Guards, Finland did not leave a chance to live in peace in 40 years. By their own actions, they paved the way for a future war. And we should not forget its constant invasions and crossing of scouts and saboteurs from the Finnish side. oino all 20-30 years even after the signing of the armistice in 22. They did everything for a future war with the USSR.

[Tests]

Dear author! Please enlighten me and all VO visitors. when the city of Povenets was a part of Sweden and Finland. The urban-type settlement Povenets was occupied by Finnish troops when? On what grounds? And, please, give the figures of "what and hop" from the occupied regions of the USSR were raked out by "peace-loving" Finns for the period 1941-1944, including round timber, agricultural products, equipment of Petrozavodsk factories, rolling stock of the UZD.

[wehr]

Why should Poven be in Finland, let alone Sweden? This is Onega, behind Petrozavodsk.
For the documents on the Finnish occupation policy, you have to go, apparently, to Helsinki. Actually, yes, this gap should be filled.

[Lontus]

The main task, the meaning of the entire operation of the "Second World War" was a direct clash of outsiders and a mutually destructive clash.
In this case, the weakest and stupidest should have won.
But how to provoke it?
There were several stages. First, the Germans were smashed by the Anschluss and Czechoslovakia. Then they were dragged into a war with the Maginot Line in the West and with open fields for tank battles in the East. At the same time, on the Western Front, they began to give sweets and play volleyball. This is after the destruction of Poland.
The Germans hesitated.

Then in Finland they were shown that the war in the East would be an easy walk.

Nemchura began to scratch the back of her head. But hesitated - "two fronts". "We've already gone through this once."
Then the bear was ordered to TELL the Germans. This is AFTER the Finnish shame.
In the end, the Germans could not stand it.
The German had to burst into tears, get into the meat grinder with boots. Hence the insane strategy of "not succumbing to provocations" even AFTER the start of large-scale hostilities.

Because “not to succumb to provocations” was a provocation by the instigators of the war, who pitted the Russians and the Germans.

[Dr. Frankenstucker]

What a funny conspiracy fantasy) Apothege of the aftermath. Again mysterious manipulators.

[Tests]

Lontus (Alexey), dear, do you really think that the actions of the 14th army in the winter of 1939-1940 in the conditions of the polar night is a shame? Is the occupation of Eastern (Old) Salla a shame too? The criminal inaction of the leadership of the 163rd rifle division, which failed to organize combat security and normal reconnaissance, did not take measures to occupy and hold important heights along the road - with technical superiority over the Finns surrounding them - a shame, unambiguously, I agree with you here. But the capture of Petsamo (Pechenga) with the mines and the dash of the 14th Army to the south deserves only a stormy long standing ovation.

[Operator]

The author's worries about the damage to Finland by the USSR are absolutely incomprehensible (after the Finns treacherously violated the conditions of ratification of the SNK of the RSFSR of the Declaration of Independence of Finland and many cases of Finland's attack on the RSFSR in 1918-20s, each time with insolent violation of peace treaties).

By the time of the beginning and in the course of negotiations between the USSR and Finland, territorial seizures had already been legalized in Europe - the Sudetenland, Cieszyn region, Subcarpathian Rus, and the Czech Republic proper. The League of Nations was silent in a rag.

Why shouldn't the USSR have used such a legalized instrument of foreign policy, especially against a treacherous and aggressive neighbor? Occupation and territorial seizure is the standard way for the first half of the 1940s to strengthen its position in a future war (see, for example, the US capture of the Philippines and the occupation of Iceland). And no one buzzes about bad America.

Another thing is that the USSR, after the military victory over Finland in 1940, faced the threat of a situational alliance between Germany, Britain and France, which did not make it possible to change the status of all of Finland from a sovereign state to a union republic - with the right to freely secede from the USSR, of course. ...

Again, a year before that, the sovereign Czech Republic forcibly turned into a protectorate of Germany, and no one broke diplomatic relations with the Third Reich. Therefore, the USSR had full international right to demand from Finland not only territorial, but ultimately status changes. And if the Finns refused - to act with them as Germany, Britain and France did with the Czechs.

Or you can't touch the Chukhonts, but the Slavs can?

[Jünger]

Quote: Operator

Why shouldn't the USSR have used such a legalized instrument of foreign policy, especially against a treacherous and aggressive neighbor?

Yes, of course I should have. But then there is no need to complain that the same instrument "against the treacherous and aggressive neighbor" was used on June 22, 1941 by Germany, to which the USSR owed a lot of territories according to the Brest-Litovsk Peace.
Everyone should be judged by the same yardstick - the Chukhonts and the Slavs and the Germans.

[Operator]

The Brest-Litovsk peace rested in the Bose after the signing of the Rapallesky.

What was the treachery and aggressiveness of the USSR against Germany as of June 22, 1941?

"Satisfied with the ruins of Berlin" (C), no need to teach a scientist - we will judge by the internationally accepted methodology

[Jünger]

Quote: Operator

The Brest-Litovsk peace rested in the Bose after the signing of the Rapallesky.

He rested of course, but the sediment remained. And since he remained, then it is not a sin for a great power to use an instrument.

Quote: Operator

What was the treachery and aggressiveness of the USSR against Germany as of June 22, 1941?

Yes, it was the same as Finland in 1939 or Poland in the same year in relation to the USSR - nothing. There are no problems, everything is regulated by international treaties, and then someone feels strong and hungry and begins to tear up the weak. Only when the USSR does it, the jingoistic patriots are happy, and when they start to tear up the USSR, the ecumenical lament begins.

Quote: Operator

"Satisfied with the ruins of Berlin"

27 million corpses and ten million cripples and drunkards do not cause satisfaction for a normal Russian. No Berlin or Paris is worth it.

[Operator]

As for the sediment, you are right, we will correct ourselves - next time there will be no one to besiege.

You did not answer the question about the aggressiveness of the USSR towards Germany in fact

We did not endure Berlin, but the Third European Reich, after which "ten million cripples and drunkards" created an unparalleled nuclear missile potential and drove the only remaining geopolitical enemy into the African American corner.

[Unknown]

bad article, the author does not know the history of finland at all. the Finns, felt good under the Swedish crown. They took part in all the campaigns of the Swedes, starting with Gustav-Adolf2, ending with Gustav3. They went with Karl 12 and at half-tava. all Finnish aristocracy is closely related to the Swedish. so that the origins of Russophobia, the Finns have deep roots. Mannerheim's ancestor, the Dutchman Manerheim, entered the service of the Swedish king. Yes, the history of Finland's annexation to RI needs to be rethought. Was it necessary to annex all of Finland, or just the coast of the Gulf of Finland with islands, and leave the rest to the Swedes. by the way, the Finns still have a second state language, Swedish. maybe it was better that way. There was no proud state, Suomi, but there was one of the provinces of Sweden, and Russia had fewer problems. What Alexander thought when he created the state, we will never know in the state. but it didn’t help Russia. and in 1918, when von der Goltz landed with Finnish volunteers in Finland, in addition to their Bolsheviks, the Finns successfully exterminated the Russians who remained there, and out of their naivety they thought that they would not be touched. Well, they beat fools in the church. it must be understood that for the Finns, be it R.I. RSFR, or the USSR, there is no big difference, all Russians do not delve into subtleties. and about the causes of the war of 1939-40, better than Comrade STALIN, no one has yet spoken ......... Could it have been possible to do without war? It seems to me that it was impossible. It was impossible to do without war. The war was necessary, since the peace negotiations with Finland did not yield results, and the security of Leningrad had to be ensured unconditionally, for its security is the security of our Fatherland. Not only because Leningrad represents 30-35 percent of the defense industry of our country and, therefore, the fate of our country depends on the integrity and safety of Leningrad, but also because Leningrad is the second capital of our country. To break through to Leningrad, occupy it and form there, say, a bourgeois government, a White Guard government - this means providing a fairly serious basis for a civil war within the country against Soviet power ................ the whole speech, can be read in the speech of Comrade STALIN on the results of the war of 1939-40. everything is there, point by point. to all questions, there are answers.

[Jünger]

Everything is fine in this article, and the author is like a ray in the dark kingdom.
At least someone here, besides Shpakovsky, begins to objectively cover the events of the Soviet period, otherwise these songs are about the "masters of the West" and the beautiful and sinless USSR, in which the cows were milked better and fed up with order.

[not main]

Quote: Octopus

For the uninitiated: THE SOVIET UNION appeared on the map in 1924. Finland never attacked him,

Well yes! de jure. And when the attack on the RSFSR does not count? Aren't these the same cities and lands? And why now in Petrozavodsk (already within the city limits), there is a monument on which it is written that the last line of defense of Petrozavodsk in 1918 lay here? But there were also 1919 and 1920, or have you already forgotten everything? Let me remind you of 1941!

[Octopus]

Quote: non-primary

And when the attack on the RSFSR does not count?

In the 18th year, the RSFSR existed mainly in the statements of Comrade. Trotsky. There is an expression "declares as Trotsky".
In fact, the rebels barely controlled several major cities. Another thing is that gentlemen officers squabbled with each other and loved everything.

Quote: non-primary

here was the last defense line of Petrozavodsk in 1918? But there were both 1919 and 1920, or have you already forgotten everything?

Forgot that Petrozavodsk did not become Finnish? Are you sure that the residents of Petrozavodsk are very happy about this fact?

By the way, who then recaptured Karelia from the Finns for the Soviet regime? Are they not Americans?

Quote: non-primary

Let me remind you of 1941!

What's 41st?

[not main]

Quote: Octopus

By the way, who then recaptured Karelia from the Finns for the Soviet regime? Are they not Americans?

Where did these come from?

[not main]

Quote: Octopus

What's 41st?

Well, since the 41st is not clear for you, then the rest is not for you!

[not main]

Quote: Octopus

Forgot that Petrozavodsk did not become Finnish? Are you sure that the residents of Petrozavodsk are very happy about this fact?

Even more! I live here myself!

[Octopus]

Quote: non-primary

Even more! I live here myself!

Well, at least someone was lucky with political geography, congratulations.

Quote: non-primary

Where did these come from?

The Entente contingent on the Server operated under British command, but the L / s was primarily American.

Quote: non-primary

Well, since the 41st is not clear to you,

Absolutely.

[not main]

Quote: Octopus

Well, at least someone was lucky with political geography, congratulations.

Thanks! But I don’t need it!

[not main]

Quote: Octopus

The Entente contingent on the Server operated under British command, but the L / s was primarily American.

Okay, but in the North! Secondly, Petrozavodsk in the South of Karelia! And what you are citing refers to the Arkhangelsk region! Excuse me, but "two bast shoes on the map"!

[VicktorVR]

Of course, I just passed by, but I think that the situation

Finland, neutral or on the side of the USSR

possible only with the complete occupation / accession of Finland to the USSR.

[fruit_cake]

what to pull over to your side if there have been constant shelling on the border since the civil war? when the Finns were engaged in ethnic cleansing and went to territories that were not

[Yaik Cossack]

I will repeat my deleted post for some reason.
The war with Finland in 1941 began with the Finnish landing operation on the demilitarized Åland Islands on the night of June 22. The Soviet consulate, which monitored the status of the islands, was INTERNAL, that is, arrested, and then taken to Sweden. Finland thereby completely and unilaterally trampled on the treaty with the USSR.

[Yaik Cossack]

This fact is recognized by Finnish historians. But they don't like to mention it ...

[Murrr 27]

So. the thought is not mine, but I completely agree with it:
1. Why then LOUDLY SILENT about the idea of ​​"Great Finland", which was very popular, and is not forgotten now (by analogy with Poland "From Mozha to Mozha") from Phoenician to the Arkhangelsk-Baku line, these are "Moderates", to the Urals - "hawks". There is not a lot of information, but there is one very clearly speaks of the reasons for the war.
2. What was the "economy" of Finky based on6
and. Subsistence farming - rye, meat, etc.
b. Timber trade with Sweden - with this money they bought what they could not do themselves. (At that time, logging was mainly in the summer, there was no equipment.
Further, thinking like psheki that all of Europe is eager to fight for Greater Finland to the Urals, one has only to start - they mobilized the army, and a bunch of "hot Finnish guys" did not grow bread, did not cut wood - but sat in uniform and with guns.
COULD THE GOVERNMENT AFTER THIS JUST REMOVE THEM TO HOME?by concluding a peace treaty? They would be quickly shuffled into stroganin. And "War will write off everything" ... And wrote off.
What did the war give to the USSR?
1.The border with the enemy country was pushed back very noticeably, and with the beginning of the Second World War, despite the mess in the management of the KAUR, it was occupied by the troops of the USSR.
2. The statutes were very seriously revised, and there were still many decisions - "An unknown war in documents and decisions" (? The title is not accurate, after the death of a friend, his books were lost).
These are both correct decisions - about the production of PP, for example, and wrong (for the infantry) - about disk magazines for them. So she bought off with blood in the Second World War, so that Gorodnitsky would not howl about it there (I stopped singing his songs altogether - to sing the songs of a traitor to me).

[Dzungar]

Well, it's good that the Finns did not agree with the proposal of the USSR in 1939 ... So Russia would now be without this huge territory in Karelia ...

[ua1osm]

All these are trifles and trifles. The most important and tragic result of this winter war for the USSR was Hitler's decision to immediately prepare for an attack on the USSR, since the red army is incapable of combat, and the Wehrmacht can easily capture the USSR during a blitzkrieg. Most likely, Hitler worked out this issue with Mannerheim in advance, and it is with this that the intransigence of the Finns in the negotiations is connected, since the attack on the USSR was in Germany's strategic plans for the near future, it remains to check in action and evaluate the capabilities of the red army in real battles.

[Python 57]

The USSR simply ate everything that came along the way. I started with Russia, then the metastases continued on! The globe on the coat of arms was not drunkenly drawn! It took Hitler's attack for Stalin to understand the futility of the idea of ​​building a Zemsharna Republic of Soviets.

[froger]

A very good, objective and balanced article. Many neo-Stalinists go so far as to call Finland's refusal to voluntarily give the aggressor the best part of its territory inhabited almost exclusively by Finns, a brazen trick of a bandit.
Our country has always professed the principle: "We do not need someone else's land, but we will not give up ours either." Let us leave aside the thesis “we don’t need someone else’s land,” but ask ourselves a question: does the thesis “we will not give up an inch of our land to anyone” to other countries or not? And how would the people of Finland react if their government obediently and shamefully went to meet the demands of the robber? If at least one of the two opponents wants war, then it will begin. Finland did not want war, but was forced to try to repel the aggressor. I happened to read Mannerheim's order to his troops about the start of the war, and I kept comparing the situation with the situation in the USSR after June 22, 1941, when we found ourselves in about the same situation as Finland found itself in 1939-40.
And further . Comparing the case with the Sudetenland, when Czechoslovakia was forced to surrender this region to Germany, is completely inadmissible. The fact is that the Sudetenland at that time was inhabited mainly by Germans.
In any case, in historical terms, the "winter war" was one of the major strategic mistakes of the USSR, badly influenced in the long term (up to the present moment) on the relations between our countries and showed the whole world the aggressive nature of the Stalinist regime. And when I hear the question “Why are Russians so disliked throughout the world?” I feel that the answer to this question lies, among other things, in the events of 1939-40.

[Poppy]

Speaking about the Soviet-Finnish war of 39-40, many for some reason forget that it was not the first Soviet-Finnish war, but the third - and it was the Finns who attacked Soviet Karelia, who dreamed of Great Finland to the Urals - and the USSR was bleeding from the nose it was necessary to ensure the safety of the entrance to the Gulf of Finland, for which we needed a naval base on Hanko (it was already in Tallinn), then our fleet could fight in a mine-artillery position - but the Finns were not even going to agree because they had the support of the western countries - even this war actually started the Finns, tk. they mobilized, and mobilization is a de facto declaration of war (and they could not help but fight after they had mobilized - the economy would simply have collapsed, only the war could cover it up), and then no one considered the USSR a serious adversary, and the experience of the previous wars confirmed this.

[Poppy]

Quote: froger

Finland did not want war, but was forced to try to repel the aggressor.

Just the opposite: Finland quite wanted a war for itself, fortunately, this is not the first time, but the USSR sought to solve the matter peacefully - it was possible to bargain both in territories and in payments.

And they didn't really know about the Mannerheim line in the USSR, which explains its relative effectiveness at the beginning of the war - then heavy guns were brought up and the whole line ended pretty quickly

[Poppy]

Quote: froger

In any case, in historical terms, the "winter war" was one of the major strategic mistakes of the USSR, badly influenced in the long term (up to the present moment) on the relations between our countries and showed the whole world the aggressive nature of the Stalinist regime. And when I hear the question “Why are Russians so disliked throughout the world?” I feel that the answer to this question lies, among other things, in the events of 1939-40.

Nonsense: imagine that there would be no this war, then you would have gotten yourself into the Great Patriotic War in Budennovka and overcoats - after all, all these felt boots, quilted jackets, earflaps are from the experience of the winter war

[Poppy]

Quote: Murrr 27

Why is it LOUDLY SILENT about the idea of ​​"Greater Finland", which was very popular, and is still not forgotten

Because they do not know and do not know about the previous ones, but they throw slogans

[nikitin.viktor1705]

Sheer nonsense,
especially impressed
sawmills.