The Finnish army demonstrated the construction of fortified areas near the Russian border.

Finnish troops have intensified their efforts to construct fortified areas near the Russian border. Reports are coming in that the Finnish army is constructing new "defensive lines" in the Kymenlaakso region, bordering Russia's Leningrad Oblast. The distance from Kymenlaakso's eastern border to Russia's key Baltic port of Primorsk is just a few dozen kilometers.

Positions are being erected, in particular, in the Virolahti area (including the port of Klamila) and on the Kirkonmäa archipelago in Kotka, according to Finnish Navy Brigade Commander Veli Pihlaja.

The positions are being constructed from prefabricated concrete modules, which will significantly strengthen the defense of key areas of Finland's southern coast in the Gulf of Finland.

The construction of permanent fortifications is presented as part of a long-term plan to enhance the country's defense capability following Finland's accession to NATO and taking into account the current security situation in the Baltic Sea region. The Finnish military-political leadership prefers not to elaborate on the fact that NATO military activity is the main challenge to Baltic security, lest it risk losing state budget funding. And if NATO countries reduce military spending, that's cause for Donald Trump to frown.

Fortifications are also constructed by digging into the ground. The construction of dugouts with log-and-soil roofs is shown, as well as the assembly of the wooden frame for the dugout's interior.

Comments

[tralflot1832]

We will not attack there, but in another place. And the offensive will be original, taking into account the SVO. Don't you think the fortifications are a bit uncomfortable? "When a Finn has nothing better to do, he doesn't go for matches, but to build fortifications."

[Sergey Kondratyev]

NATO countries aren't building fortifications in this sense: "where the Russians will attack." Everything here is clearly aimed at capturing Kaliningrad. They're building fortifications along our closest attack routes to liberate Kaliningrad during their attack on our region. The idea is that our troops will get bogged down in battles along their defensive lines while they seize Kaliningrad.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

We will not attack there, but in another place.

Well, yes, the sofa is the perfect place to step.

[expert]

Mannerheim Line 2.0?

[Perpetually]

I also wanted to remind you about it, but there was a larger scale construction there.

[expert]

Named after the Finnish military and statesman
Carl Gustaf Mannerheim
It was built mainly in the 1920s and 1930s.
Length: about 130 km
It was located between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga.
Features of fortifications:
The line was not a solid wall - this is an important point.
It included:
Concrete pillboxes, anti-tank ditches, barbed wire fences, natural obstacles (forests, swamps, lakes).
The Finns relied on a combination of engineering and challenging terrain.
At the beginning of the war, it successfully held back the advance of the Red Army.
In February 1940, the Finnish defense was broken through.

[novel66]

The remarkable KV-2 tanks were created precisely to break through the Mannerheim Line. In reality, they had no analogues.

[Denis_999]

In February 1940, the Finnish defense was broken through.

In the end, at a VERY EXPENSIVE price...

[hector]

Quote: Denis_999

As a result, at a VERY EXPENSIVE price.

For Russia, all wars come at a high price.

[bayard]

Quote: Denis_999

In the end, at a VERY EXPENSIVE price...

Actually, it was winter. There were more losses from frostbite, and the equipment wasn't up to par. Immediately after that war (and even during it), the Red Army acquired felt boots, sheepskin coats, quilted pea coats, ushanka hats, special mittens with a separate index finger for shooting, field kitchens for organizing hot meals, and backpack thermoses for delivering hot food to the front lines. Not to mention the KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, skis for moving on snow, field saunas, and other innovations that were very helpful during WWII. But most importantly, the border was moved away from Leningrad, because under the old border, Leningrad could have been fired upon with heavy artillery from Finland, targeting the city of three revolutions.
It's also worth remembering that the Red Army was in the midst of deployment and a sharp increase in numbers. Commanders lacked experience, and the army was in the midst of rearmament. Essentially, it was a mock war. The goal was achieved (the border was pushed back), and adjustments were made to equipment, weapons, the organization of services, logistics, and combat.

[ZovSailor]

bayard
Today, 17: 53
Actually, it was winter. There were more losses from frostbite, and the equipment wasn't up to par. Immediately after that war (and even during it), the Red Army acquired felt boots, sheepskin coats, quilted pea coats, ushanka hats, special mittens with a separate index finger for shooting, field kitchens for hot meals, and backpack thermoses for delivering hot food to the front lines.

After the Great Patriotic War, memoirs of former Fritz soldiers and historians appeared, falsely acknowledging for propaganda purposes that the main reason for the Nazi defeat in the Battle of Moscow in 1941 was the miscalculation of the timing of the summer blitzkrieg, the lack of advance orders for winter uniforms, and the severe Russian frosts, forgetting to mention the heroism and resilience of the Red Army.

[bayard]

Well, their memoirs also contain plenty of stories about the Red Army's resilience and "fanatical nature," and they sensed it from the very first days and weeks of the war. But on June 22, 1941, we had only 57 divisions on the western border (approximately 13,000 men each), while the Wehrmacht had 190 divisions deployed (an average of 17,000 men each). And that's without taking into account that the armies of Finland and Romania also entered the war alongside the Wehrmacht. Considering that the armies of the Western Front immediately found themselves in giant cauldrons... It's no wonder the Germans advanced so quickly when the second-echelon troops entered battle piecemeal, stretching out their marching columns and advancing on foot...
Well, the early frosts that winter—completely unusual for the Germans—the lack of winter gear, the lack of frost-resistant lubricants, and the lack of antifreeze for aircraft and vehicle engines—these are all textbook facts and also had a significant impact. As did the 20 fresh Siberian divisions near Moscow. Troops are a multifaceted thing. But back then, the Soviet leadership of the country worked for victory; traitors, saboteurs, and wreckers were shot, military leaders were promoted according to merit, and the Army and the people were confident in their leadership. Such a country could and knew how to win.
And this one is afraid of the foreign agent of the central bank (an IMF branch), allows it to mock the economy, the people, and the army, while officials sabotage and steal like crazy. During a war, the very existence of our state and our people depends on its outcome.

[solar]

But the most important thing is that the border was moved away from Leningrad

A highly questionable assertion. At the same time, Finland was pushed into an alliance with Germany, which had a dire impact on Leningrad's fate. It would have been entirely possible to achieve Finland's neutrality in the war, had policy been pursued correctly. But Finland's attempt to replicate its success in the Baltics led to less than favorable results. :((...

[bayard]

Quote from solar

It would have been entirely possible to achieve Finland's neutrality in the war if the policy had been pursued correctly.

This was impossible - Finland was under close British influence (and at that time the main enemies of the USSR were England and France, they were preparing joint attacks on the oil facilities of Baku and Grozny from their bases in Iraq and Syria. It was thanks to pressure and assurances from England that Finland refused the USSR an exchange of territories - a border security zone near Leningrad for a much larger one in Karelia. Moreover, the Finns constantly provoked the USSR on the border and were confident of support from England and France. So they definitely tried to negotiate, but the Finns simply lost their coast in their arrogance and confidence in the impregnability of their Mannerheim Line. But they were mistaken in their expectations - England took too long to get ready to help the Finns, as did France, and the Red Army, despite the fact that the war happened in winter and despite the initial failures, poor equipment and unpreparedness to wage war in such a theater of operations, solved all its problems by the end calendar winter and forced the Finns to agree to peace agreements on our terms. They never received aid or a British landing.

Quote from solar

controversial statement

If the border had not been moved back that winter, then in the very first hours and minutes of the war Leningrad would have found itself under attack from Finnish and German artillery, and fighter aircraft would have had to fight enemy bombers directly over the city.
The role of the USSR's territorial gains in 1939-1940 is invaluable. This is precisely what allowed the border to be pushed westward, preventing the Germans from approaching Moscow in early autumn, when it was still warm and dry. This gave the Red Army space and time to organize a defense and enabled them to stop the Germans at Moscow. Their troops arrived there already seriously battered, tired, with units undermanned by about 30%, with severely stretched communications, and already in late autumn, when the rasputitsa (mud) set in, followed by a sharp frost.
The extended border also allowed for the evacuation of industry from the western regions beyond the Urals—also thanks to the space and time gained. Without this, we would not have won. Or we would certainly have lost Moscow and been unable to evacuate a significant portion of our industrial enterprises.

Quote from solar

An attempt to replicate the Baltic success in Finland has not led to very good results

The Baltic pseudo-states themselves asked the USSR to first introduce troops and deploy their bases on their territory, and then THEMSELVES, by decision of their parliaments, asked to join the USSR.
You probably don't remember that the USSR's economy took off in the 30s thanks to brilliant industrialization, collectivization, and agricultural mechanization (the deployment of machine-to-telephone networks). At the same time, all Western countries were experiencing their worst crisis—the Great Depression. Stagnation after a profound economic downturn, mass unemployment, despondency, and depression. And against this backdrop—the USSR's fantastic rise to the Second World Economy. The entire world watched with amazement and admiration at the successes, rapid growth, and development of the USSR, as well as the rising prosperity of its citizens. By that time, the USSR had already begun supplying these three former Russian provinces with desperately needed goods that were not sold to them in Europe. So, the request to join the USSR was not under pressure, but persuasion.
But with Finland, it was different. There was already an ideology there, and a higher standard of living than in the USSR was also taking its toll. Furthermore, the Finns' self-confidence was fueled by England. But after the war, when Germany intervened on Finland's behalf... that's when the Finns aligned themselves with Hitler.
In the USSR they were then called nothing less than White Finns.

[solar]

This was impossible - Finland was under heavy British influence.

Specifically, British, not German. We effectively turned them over to the German side. And that led to big problems later.

At that time, the main enemies of the USSR were England and France, they were preparing joint attacks on the oil facilities of Baku and Grozny

Of course – England and France were fighting the Nazis at the time, and we were supplying the Nazis to wage war against them. We had concluded a formal friendship treaty with the Nazis, provided military assistance – guiding raiders, accused England and France of being the aggressors and the ones who had attacked Germany, and were preparing to fully join the alliance of Germany, Japan, and Italy and conclude a Four-Power Pact, but only Italy's position prevented this. In fact, non-joining the pact was a happy accident.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пакт_четырёх_держав

But with Finland it was different.

The same thing was being prepared as for the Baltics—the creation of a Karelo-Finnish SSR led by Kuusinen. This issue was agreed upon with the Germans in the annexes to the non-aggression pact with Germany. The Finns, however, categorically insisted on their neutrality, in accordance with the existing treaty between the USSR and Finland.

The Baltic pseudo-states themselves begged the USSR

They were made an offer they couldn't refuse. Initially, the Baltics also wanted to remain neutral, but they were divided according to the annex to the pact between Germany and the USSR. And only after that did the USSR inquire: what would their positive response be?

After negotiations with the Estonian delegation, Stalin declared to Selter[42]: “The Estonian government acted wisely and for the benefit of the Estonian people by concluding an agreement with the Soviet Union. With you, things could have turned out as with Poland. Poland was a great power. Where is Poland now?”

Here, they explain it outright, not even hint at it. The annexation of the Baltics occurred after the Soviet-Finnish War, by the way. And the Balts clearly saw what happens to those who don't accommodate the wishes of Soviet workers. Clearly, they really didn't want that.

[bayard]

Quote from solar

Specifically, British, not German. We effectively turned them over to the German side. And that led to big problems later.

Britain was our enemy – historical, systemic, consistent, and stubborn. For the Russian Empire, the USSR, and the Russian Federation. So everything was right. The only thing we needed was British and French troops near Leningrad.

Quote from solar

Of course - England and France were fighting the Nazis at that time.

No! They didn't fight. They only feigned war and did everything they could to push Hitler against the USSR. But Hitler turned on them first, and they had to fight against their will. And that was a huge diplomatic victory for Stalin. Otherwise, that whole pack, along with Hitler, would have fallen upon us – he from the west, they from the south. But he forced them to fight among themselves. And the key to that victory lay in Finland. And I repeat – the border was pushed back from Leningrad.

Quote from solar

They helped militarily - with the escort of raiders, accused England and France of being aggressors and of being the ones who attacked Germany,

And so it was – it was England and France that declared war on Germany and were de jure at war with it. Moreover, the circumstances of the provocation in Gleiwitz were still completely unknown. And Poland, which had defeated Hitler in the war against the USSR, had been the USSR's enemy before that, and the only thing they disagreed on was the distribution of future spoils – who would get what territory. Crimea was a hotly contested issue.
So who should we pity? If Poland was England's Tame Hyena? Was it really her? Or England? Or France itself, which, together with the English, was preparing a joint attack on Baku and Grozny?
So everything was done correctly. You should watch the wonderful 1943 American film "What We're Fighting For." It clearly shows everything: who attacked whom and why; how industrialization was carried out, with factories initially designed for rapid evacuation beyond the Urals; how the trials of traitors and conspirators in Tukhachevsky's gang took place; and how the attack on the USSR was prepared and carried out. This film (a feature-documentary) was made by the former US ambassador to the USSR, a friend of Roosevelt. Look at it through the eyes of the American president and his friend, who was deeply immersed in those processes. If your Anglophilia allows it. There's not a word of reproach directed at the USSR or Stalin, and he and Tukhachevsky were well acquainted and communicated informally.

Quote from solar

They were preparing to fully join the alliance of Germany, Japan and Italy and conclude a four-power pact, but only Italy's position prevented this from happening.

Oh, come on. What about Japan's position? After the defeat at Khalkhin Gol? Stalin was then playing an energetic diplomatic game, aimed at creating divisions within his enemies' camp to prevent them from uniting against the USSR. And he was quite successful in this. He gained two years to prepare the country for war (the Poles had been insisting on attacking the USSR as early as 1939). As a result, the Germans crushed Poland, and the USSR regained its Western and Western borders, pushing back its borders. He fulfilled the "minimum program" for Finland, pushing back the border from Leningrad and wresting it from British control.
Did she go under Hitler?
So, this clash of interests also led to Hitler's subsequent attacks on France and other European border states. And this took time, which the USSR used to better prepare for war and push its borders westward. You can also blame it for the return of Bessarabia to the USSR. How the border was moved away from Odessa, the main trading port of the USSR.
Everything was done CORRECTLY. Our enemies were fighting among themselves, so they could no longer conspire against us. In 1940, Hitler dealt with France and took over a number of European countries to ensure security from England. At the same time, we maintained the most excellent relations with the USA and very brisk trade.
As a result, when Hitler attacked the USSR, we were already much better prepared, we had managed to begin a high-quality rearmament (but precisely begin) of the Army, we had managed to expand it to a strength of 5,3 million bayonets (although we had not yet completed the formation of new units, their equipment, and we had to maintain large groups (fronts) in the Far East against Japan, in the Transcaucasus and the SA against England. But in the summer of 1941, we already felt much stronger and more confident than in 1939.
At the same time, Hitler had England, its navy, and the "mysteriously neutral" United States in his rear. The English trembled at the mere thought of a German landing on the island and threw a real celebration when Hitler finally attacked the USSR. But this time, if he had won, England would certainly have been destroyed – island England itself and its entire empire. With the help of the entire Europe united by Hitler and the resources of the USSR. Hitler would have quickly built his navy, flooding all European shipyards with orders, and the Luftwaffe would have expanded its numbers and quality several times, if not an order of magnitude. And the United States would have been left to cower in solitude across the oceans. These are the consequences of the Soviet-Finnish War.
That's why it was so easy for Molotov and Stalin to cobble together an anti-Hitler coalition from the USSR, the USA, and England and force their sworn enemy of centuries to assist the USSR with military supplies, logistics, weapons, and to participate in the bombing of Germany. Even after many years, Churchill, looking back, marveled at Stalin's political and diplomatic skill, who forced all his enemies to fight each other and compete with each other in supplying the USSR (Germany until June 22, 1941, England from the autumn of 1941).
Can you even imagine what kind of power a united Wehrmacht and Polish Army would have had after mobilization? Against the USSR, perhaps not in 1939, but say in the spring and summer of 1940? When England and France would have struck us simultaneously in Arkhangelsk and Transcaucasia, and also reignited the Basmachi movement in the Soviet Socialist Republic and sent troops there through Afghanistan?
And Japan in the Far East.
Like ?
To me - no.
But you're the one advocating for exactly this scenario!! And then there's the tall tale about the USSR joining the Axis Triple Alliance. Stalin knew Japan would be against it. I don't think anyone really thought about Italy; Japan was enough, fuming and fuming, considering the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact an act of betrayal by Hitler. So this is exactly the same proposal for the USSR to join NATO from Stalin... and then from Putin. Both knew the offer wouldn't be accepted, but the fact itself revealed the true intentions of the "partners."

Quote from solar

And the Balts clearly saw what happens to those who do not meet the wishes of Soviet workers.

The Baltics were in the depths of a profound economic crisis at the time, and seeing a new world war looming, they were terrified of finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. They'd seen firsthand how England had abandoned Poland, then Finland. They'd also seen that there was no war between the USSR and Germany, but rather trade, cooperation, and coordination. But Germany didn't feed its conquered tributaries. The USSR, on the other hand, immediately began developing and socializing new citizens and new territories into Soviet society. Supplies improved, jobs appeared, and development began. That's why the Balts were overwhelmingly happy to join the USSR. I'm talking, of course, about peoples, ordinary citizens. Moreover, at that time, all the world's Jews were for the USSR, and they made up a significant portion of the population in the capitals and cities of these agrarian, underdeveloped territories. So, have no doubt – they were happy. The old people in Vilnius themselves told me about this when I was studying there. Some of them even fought in the partisan movement during the war.

Quote from solar

They really didn't want this.

We wanted to.
But they did NOT want to find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

[solar]

Britain was our enemy - historical, systemic, consistent and persistent. For the Russian Empire, the USSR, and the Russian Federation.

And Germany?

No! They didn't fight. They only pretended to be at war.

But he definitely didn't portray Hitler?
The war was very real.

Otherwise, this whole pack, together with Hitler, would have fallen upon us - he from the west, they from the south.

They proposed fighting Hitler together. But Stalin preferred to conclude a friendship treaty with Hitler.

As a result, the Germans defeated Poland, and the USSR regained its Western and Eastern borders, pushing back its borders. It fulfilled the "minimum program" for Finland, pushing back the border from Leningrad and wresting it from British control.

And what did this achieve? In the very first days of the war, the borders were restored.

wrested it from England's control

Wrested control of our wartime ally and handed it over to Germany, our enemy in this war. A brilliant plan, as reliable as a Swiss watch!

I was amazed by Stalin's political and diplomatic skill, who forced all his enemies to fight each other and compete to supply the USSR

Such political and diplomatic skill that we had 27 million dead in the war against Germany, with whom we had recently signed a Treaty of Friendship! This is simply the pinnacle of diplomatic art.

Can you even imagine what kind of strength the combined Wehrmacht and Polish Army would have had after mobilization?

Uh, don't you know that they fought among themselves?

When England and France would strike us simultaneously in Arkhangelsk and Transcaucasia

Why would they attack if we weren't supplying the Germans? That's precisely why they were planning to attack Baku. They had enough problems with the Germans as it was, with the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain underway. And no one was planning to attack Arkhangelsk.

And also fables about the USSR joining the Axis Triple Alliance.

Actually, I gave you a link. There are links to archival documents, check them out. And it wasn't Japan that was against it, but Italy, because of its position on the Black Sea straits.
Japan had no conflicts with us at that time and did not plan to.

considering the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact an act of betrayal against him on the part of Hitler

He didn't touch Japan at all.

They saw with their own eyes how England first threw Poland

How could she have betrayed them if they declared war on the Germans and refused to make peace, even though both Hitler and the USSR were pushing for it? Read Molotov's speech on foreign policy. You're imagining some kind of alternative history. In reality, England declared war on Germany precisely because of Poland.

But Germany did not feed its conquered tributaries.

Those territories that were incorporated into Germany (but not all of them) were quite developed. Just like the USSR.

[bayard]

Quote from solar

Britain was our enemy - historical, systemic, consistent and persistent. For the Russian Empire, the USSR, and the Russian Federation.
And Germany?

At that time, no. Meanwhile, Germany was a very significant trading partner, providing 18% of our industrialization supplies, transferring technology and licenses, and helping launch production. Meanwhile, England imposed an embargo on trade with the USSR and, during the Soviet Famine due to crop failure, pushed through the League of Nations a ban on grain sales to the USSR, even for gold. The Kremlin remembered all this very well. So, at that time, England was the enemy, and Germany was a profitable trading partner.
And in the event of a war between Germany and England, it would be advantageous for us to support Germany in order to weaken our main Enemy.

Quote from solar

No! They didn't fight. They only pretended to be at war.
But he definitely didn't portray Hitler?
The war was very real.

When Hitler was fighting in Poland, England and France declared war on Germany but did not enter the war. They believed Hitler wouldn't risk attacking two countries, one of which had the strongest navy and the other the strongest (or so they believed) land army in Europe. They were thus urging Hitler to "go east." But after these countries refused to sign peace, Hitler simply attacked Poland and battered the British army, which barely managed to evacuate from Dunkirk to the island.

Quote from solar

They offered to fight against Hitler together.

Don't make me laugh, it was Stalin who proposed a military alliance to contain/restrain Hitler. He was refused. Trying to help Czechoslovakia hold out, he asked Poland to allow our army into Czechoslovakia. The Poles refused and immediately attacked Czechoslovakia themselves, even a day before the Germans. And they captured one region. Then Stalin invited plenipotentiary representatives from England and France to Moscow to negotiate a treaty against Germany, but they sent some leftist thugs to Moscow without authority to negotiate. They REFUSED him.
And then Stalin agreed to allow Ribbentrop to fly to Moscow, with whom a Non-Aggression Pact had been concluded. Not an "alliance" treaty at all; everyone in Europe had such treaties, but the very first such treaty (but with elements of an alliance treaty) was concluded with Hitler by Poland. That's where he attacked first.
Why on her?
Because they were getting on everyone's nerves with their ambitions - they couldn't divide Russia and quarreled over Crimea. Besides, the Poles refused to let Germany build a road to Königsberg. The Poles were talking about war with the USSR and wanting the Germans to be their backup dancers. They seriously believed their army was stronger, and besides, they had an alliance with England and France. Germany had no such allies. Therefore, Hitler decided to get rid of such an obstinate, ambitious, and unpleasant ally. For the USSR, the elimination of Poland was also beneficial - one serious enemy less. Everything is fair. Poland is the enemy, Germany is a significant trading partner.

Quote from solar

And what did this achieve? In the very first days of the war, the borders were restored.

And yet, there were battles, not a sudden bombardment of Leningrad with heavy guns. The Finns were made a good offer, but they refused, hoping for an alliance with England (our sworn enemy). Once again: England is the enemy, Germany is a trading partner. Finland's annexation by Germany was a lesser evil for us than the Finns joining England and France. Moreover, after the Finns changed patrons, war with France and England became inevitable. And this again benefited the USSR. Moreover, we calculated that France would be able to resist for quite a long time, especially together with England and its navy. This gave us time to rearm and deploy the Army. But instead of "at least a year," the Frogs surrendered VERY quickly, and the English hid on their island and trembled like a pig in a straw house. And it was precisely the weakness and cowardice of the French that played a cruel joke on us. We simply couldn't keep up with deployment and rearmament. That's why the war began so quickly, not without betrayal, with entire units and divisions surrendering without a fight or resistance—a factor in the unresolved Trotsky-Tukhachevsky military conspiracy.

Quote from solar

He took our ally in the war out of control and handed it over to Germany, our enemy in this war.

Finland's fall to Hitler forced the latter to fight the Franks and England. For them, the "operetta war" turned into a real one, with the defeat and destruction of a very strong (as it seemed) French army. The bombing of the island and the war at sea, the seizure of Denmark and Norway, distracted Hitler and brought England to the brink of survival. The balance of power in Europe and the world immediately changed dramatically. And this was to our advantage. England no longer sought war with us, but on the contrary, dreamed of our help. Only a war between Germany and the USSR could save the island's ghouls and instigators.
And then Hitler made his main mistake - he attacked the USSR.

Quote from solar

Such political and diplomatic art that we had 27 million dead in the war against Germany

Of these, about 7,5 million are military personnel. The rest are civilians who perished during the genocide by the Nazi occupiers.

Quote from solar

in the war against Germany, with which we ourselves had recently signed a Treaty of Friendship!

Stop lying and talking nonsense, it hurts her.
A non-aggression pact is a non-aggression pact, nothing more. The same as those between England, France, and Poland.
Moreover, an entire coalition fought against the USSR. From the very first days – Romania and Finland, then Hungary, Italy, and a legion of others. Those who weren't officially fighting the USSR allowed their volunteers to join the Wehrmacht and SS divisions. Around 600,000 Poles alone served in the Wehrmacht and SS, and almost as many Frenchmen (three to four times more than in de Gaulle's army).

The war until 1944 took place on the territory of the USSR, which is why there were such huge losses of civilians.

Quote from solar

This is simply the pinnacle of diplomatic art.

The pinnacle of diplomatic art was Molotov's flight to England and the United States via Germany and the creation of the anti-Hitler coalition. When England, cornered like a rat, was forced to fight on our side and supply us with weapons and equipment. Not much, but we forced our enemies to fight among themselves first, practically destroying one (France) at the hands of Hitler, reducing the other (England) to the level of an insular outcast under the blows of Germany, and when Hitler attacked us, our most vile and vile enemy... fought on our side. For his own salvation, but he fought. History has never seen anything like it—it is the highest diplomatic balancing act, a true art and a phenomenon. Churchill wrote about this in his memoirs, admiring his enemy, Stalin.

Quote from solar

And also fables about the USSR joining the Axis Triple Alliance.
Actually, I gave you a link.

I have already written to you - this was a tactical move without counting on such an alliance, but which could have caused discord among the Axis members, and at the same time allowed them to gain additional time.

Quote from solar

It was not Japan that was against it, but Italy because of its position on the Black Sea straits.

Japan did not oppose. It simply took revenge on Hitler by refusing to open a second front. Just as Hitler did not beg.
Why
Because fighting was still raging on Khalkhin Gol when Ribbentrop signed the Non-Aggression Pact behind Japan's back and without even notifying it. For Japan, it was a stab in the back. Therefore, its revenge was cold and treacherous, in the Eastern manner. It repaid in kind – by concluding an agreement with the USSR. And it observed it throughout the war. But at the same time, it was fighting England and taking colony after colony (for us, this was simply wonderful – in Southeast Asia and even in India, our two very dangerous and powerful enemies were locked in combat and tearing each other to shreds. And bogged down in the war in the Pacific, the Japanese definitely had no time for us. And this is also the filigree work of our diplomacy – our enemies are fighting each other.
The only reliable ally in that war was the United States. Thanks to them. And Mongolia, of course.
How did it happen that all our enemies first fought among themselves, broke up into camps, and when we entered the war, some of them fought on our side.

[solar]

Then - no.

It was our choice who to be friends with and who to quarrel with. And it was England, not Germany, that was historically Russia's ally. Germany was a friend in

[/quote]A short period of time after World War I, when Germany became a pariah state. I won't even mention the States—England, for example. They ensured our industrialization and saved millions of our people from starvation en masse—the ARA, for example.
[quote]During the Famine in the USSR, due to crop failure, she pushed through the League of Nations a ban on the sale of grain to the USSR.

No В USSR, and OF USSR. The difference is fundamental.

On April 26, 1933, Great Britain imposed an embargo on imports of The Soviet Union supplied various types of grain, cotton, timber and petroleum products

With this they seemed to be pushing Hitler - "go east."

That is, according to your logic, they pushed Hitler to a war on two fronts, despite the fact that Hitler himself in his Mein Kapf directly wrote that a war on two fronts would be disastrous for Germany (and he was right, by the way).

Don't make me laugh, it was Stalin who proposed concluding a military alliance to contain/curb Hitler.

They offered it to him, but he preferred the Germans. Don't you know history?

The pinnacle of diplomatic art was Molotov's flight to England and the USA through German territory and the creation of the anti-Hitler coalition.

It was a desperate move, like that of a cornered rat; under normal circumstances, no one would have attempted such a flight. Soviet diplomacy suffered a crushing blow: a close ally, with whom they had a Treaty of Friendship and with whom they were preparing to develop a further alliance, suddenly attacked the USSR. It's hard to imagine a greater diplomatic failure.

History has never seen anything like this before.

Indeed, developing an alliance with someone who is about to attack you and the war will lead to 27 million of our victims is simply an epic, resounding failure of diplomacy, history has never seen anything like it.

I already wrote to you - it was a tactical move without counting on such an alliance

There are links there—you should read the documents. What kind of "tactical move" is that? It's no surprise that Germany's attack was sudden—Moscow was living in close full alliance with Germany, and they couldn't even imagine that Germany was about to attack.

Japan did not oppose. It simply took revenge on Hitler by refusing to open a second front. Just as Hitler did not beg.
Why

Because at that time, the USSR wasn't Japan's enemy at all. We were actively supplying them with resources from Sakhalin, and minor skirmishes before the war had been resolved. Japan's main enemy was the United States, and Japan had no desire to get involved in a war with us. We had a non-aggression pact, which we later violated. Incidentally, oil from Sakhalin was supplied to Japan throughout virtually the entire war, while Japan was fighting our ally, the United States.

The only reliable ally in that war was the United States. Thanks to them.

Immediately after the war, we fell out with them, demanding a revision of the agreements concluded during the war and refusing to sign a peace treaty with Japan under the terms agreed upon at the Yalta Conference. The Americans were simply taken aback by this—it never occurred to them that such a thing was possible. That's our way of saying thank you.

And Mongolia, of course.

For what? For selling us horses and everything else for money during the war? If the US had done something like that, we would have said they were profiting from the war. Mongolia's free aid was insignificant, and the USSR's free aid to Mongolia was significantly greater, and not in horses, but in automobiles.

How did it happen that all our enemies first fought among themselves, broke up into camps, and when we entered the war, some of them fought on our side.

They fought on their side, while we darted from camp to camp. Helping a country at the beginning of a war that they later fought, losing 27 million people (and some say 40 million)—that's simply a resounding failure of Soviet diplomacy. History simply knows nothing worse.

[bayard]

[quote=solar]It was England that was historically Russia's ally[/quote]
Was this during the "Great Game"? During the standoff on our southern borders? When it set Turkey, then the Central Asian barmalees, then Japan against us? Maybe during WWI it was out of duty as an ally?
No, she orchestrated a plot to overthrow the Tsar during the war, when victory was at hand. MI6 agents killed Rasputin, and the bullets extracted from his body came from the pistol of the British military attaché. They even made several films about it themselves. Although the bullets themselves are a criminal case with all the supporting evidence.
[quote=solar]We were friends with Germany in
[/quote]a short period of time after the First World War, when Germany became a pariah state.[/quote]
Have you forgotten about the "Holy Alliance" of the three European monarchies? Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary? Have you forgotten who supplied Rozhdestvensky's squadron with coal? Who built three types of high-speed cruisers for our fleet on the eve of the Russian Nuclear War, and after the Russian Nuclear War, the world's first destroyer, the Novik, and the cruiser, the Svetlana?
Besides, it was with Germany that we always had the most lively trade. England, on the other hand, ALWAYS imposed embargoes and trade bans. England was always an enemy. And especially now, when it is once again gathering a coalition against us for a direct war with itself at the helm.
[quote=solar]Not to the USSR, but from the USSR. The difference is fundamental.[/quote]
I'm talking about an earlier famine, when the USSR specifically needed food grain. An embargo was imposed on trade with the USSR, even for gold.
[quote=solar]That is, according to your logic, they pushed Hitler to a war on two fronts, despite the fact that Hitler himself wrote it directly in his Mein Kapf[/quote]
They didn't open a front against him, didn't take any action, believing that the Clown/Circus Performer was stupid enough to believe their beliefs (as you're trying to convince me now) that they were peaceful, good, and wouldn't even think of attacking Germany. But the USSR was big, weak, had a lot of resources, so go fight it.
[quote=solar]They offered it to him, but he preferred the Germans. Don't you know history?[/quote]
I know more than just history. Stalin always prioritized the interests of the USSR. He needed industrialization within 10 years—he concluded trade agreements with the USA and Germany and solved this problem. He needed to break out of international isolation, break enemy alliances, buy time, pit his main enemies against each other (war with England then seemed much more real, for this Stalin began building a powerful ocean fleet (battleships and battleships had only just been laid down). After the defeat of France in Europe and the driving of the British rat onto the island, Germany became the main threat to us. Enough of this hunchbacked talk about some kind of "alliance". The treaty was about non-aggression and the division of spheres of interest in Europe. Nothing more. But it untied Hitler's hands to sort things out with the ally (Poland) imposed on him by England and France (as revenge for WWI). At least two powerful enemies became less for us. England was also trembling with fear on the island and no longer thought about war against us. It was thinking about how to save itself from Hitler. And at the same time, good trade and business relations with the United States. In 1941 there were it was not at all like in 1939, but the period of readiness for war with Germany or all of Europe was not earlier than 1943. It was in 1943 that the turning point in the war occurred - readiness was achieved, albeit during the war itself.
[quote=solar] a close ally, with whom there was a Treaty of Friendship, and with whom they were preparing to develop a further alliance, suddenly attacked the USSR.[/quote]
[quote=solar] develop allied relations with someone who is about to attack you and the war will lead to 27 million of our victims[/quote]
Don't latch onto our victims in that war. And stop spouting chutzpah about an "alliance" with Hitler. It's enough to simply watch Soviet films of the time, read periodicals, reports, archives, and memoirs to understand who the country was preparing for war with. This isn't like quoting traitors like Rezun and Solonin.

[quote=solar]- In Moscow they lived in the closest full alliance with Germany, they couldn’t even imagine that Germany was about to attack.[/quote]
What universe did you fall to us from?
[quote=solar]The USSR was not an enemy of Japan, we actively supplied them with resources from Sakhalin,[/quote]
What, what?? Sakhalin was completely under Japanese control—the southern part was part of Japan, the northern part was under concession and lease. They extracted everything there themselves.
[quote=solar]Japan's main enemy was the United States[/quote]
FALSE! The United States was Japan's main oil supplier. At the time, the United States emphasized its neutrality in European affairs, so it couldn't even antagonize Germany. Moreover, the United States refused to supply oil to Japan during the war, in 1941. So the Japanese decided to launch a preemptive strike and destroy the main US base in the Pacific.
[quote=solar] We rushed from camp to camp.[/quote]
Why did you do this? Do you have panic attacks?
[quote=solar] having lost 27 million people (and some write that 40)[/quote]
Yes, write more, immediately about the fact that the naive and trusting Hitler fell victim to the betrayal of Stalin, who treacherously attacked him on his own territory.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Fachmann

Mannerheim Line 2.0?

Quote: Perpetually

I also wanted to remind you about it, but there was a larger scale construction there.

The Finns aren't what they used to be – booze tours to Leningrad leave a lasting impression, not only on the liver...

[novel66]

The price of alcohol - as a means of undermining the Finns?

This is the point, this is our strategy.

wild ensign

[invisible_man]

The Finns aren't what they used to be – booze tours to Leningrad don't go unnoticed

The Ukrainians have already been laughed at, saying they've been struck down by the clap (or something?) and therefore won't be able to fight. What other nonsense does our poor propaganda have in its arsenal?

[Zoldat_A]

Quote from invisible_man

The Finns aren't what they used to be – booze tours to Leningrad don't go unnoticed

The Ukrainians have already been laughed at, saying they've been struck down by the clap (or something?) and therefore won't be able to fight. What other nonsense does our poor propaganda have in its arsenal?

I personally know nothing about Ukrainian gonorrhea, and to see the mention of Finnish booze tours to Leningrad as propaganda—Roskomnadzor is waiting for such specialists...

[invisible_man]

Roskomnadzor, save the hurray-patriots :)) Otherwise, no one believes that the Finnish army, poor thing, has long since become an alcoholic.

[Zoldat_A]

He was a good man... But then the weather was bad, or the day just didn't go well...

[Michael]

Quote: Fachmann

Mannerheim Line 2.0?

[expert]

Mikhail, Happy May Day!
Excellent quatrain

[Michael]

Quote: Fachmann

Happy May Day!

[fruc]

In the 80s, I was in the Karelian Isthmus. There were still a lot of remains there after the war, even barbed wire on concrete posts and trenches with dugouts.

[Xenofont]

The Finns think we'll churn out five-turreted T-35s in response and rush to Helsinki! And to be fair: no nukes, drones, ballistic missiles, or anything else. And they're still hoping to win.

[tralflot1832]

Quote: Sergey Kondratiev

NATO countries aren't building fortifications in this sense: "where the Russians will attack." Everything here is clearly aimed at capturing Kaliningrad. They're building fortifications along our closest attack routes to liberate Kaliningrad during their attack on our region. The idea is that our troops will get bogged down in battles along their defensive lines while they seize Kaliningrad.

Excuse me, which academy did you graduate from? I graduated from a parochial academy.

[novel66]

No need to be ironic! A strike against the enemy in the Kaliningrad region should be carried out through Finland, to disorient the enemy.

[tralflot1832]

Quote: Fachmann

Mannerheim Line 2.0?

Moreover, at the minimum wage. Good afternoon, Evgeny. Happy Labor Day!!!

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: tralflot1832

And at minimum wages at that.

For maximum performance, Mannerheim is needed...

[expert]

Andrey, Happy May Day greetings from sunny Frankfurt!
It's 26⁰ today and it's a day off.

[Vasyan1971]

The construction of permanent fortifications is presented as part of a long-term plan to enhance the country's defense capability after Finland joins NATO.

So it turns out that before joining NATO there was no threat from Russia?

[Denis_999]

They had a gradual transition to NATO standards, which, if I remember correctly, started with the adoption of the F/A-18 Hornet in the early 90s. Then came the rebarreling of Valmets (the local AK) to 5.56mm, and the tank crews got Leo-2s.

One way or another, they were already rolling towards NATO, quietly but IRRELATLY...

[novel66]

It's natural. But the Finns are slow.

[rocket757]

They lived a quiet life, their prospects were secure, they weren't poor... They wanted to play around with military stuff, but that's a thing, it's quite expensive and the prospects are rather dim...

[Reptiloid]

I wouldn't say it was poor. Social security was decent, higher education was free, and you could go to whatever university you wanted until you were 30.

[rocket757]

They have to cut budget expenditures, and the fact that this will be social services, first and foremost, is not worth a visit...
And so, they have been growing fat for many years, and now everything is expenses, expenses... expenses.
In general, everything is known through comparison!

[Reptiloid]

Russian tourism was a great help to them; we had Finnish stores in the Leningrad region, too, and large shopping centers. And whoever could, they came to us, even bringing back not just alcohol and gasoline, but even food from us. And they bought everything much closer to the border than in St. Petersburg. Those days are over now.

[rocket757]

It wasn't just tourism there; there were a lot of profitable things there, with development prospects, by the way...
And now it's all over at once...
Their choice...

[Reptiloid]

Our tourists also buy building materials, cars, spare parts, machinery, a wide variety of household appliances, and household goods there—that is, development of industries, not just purchases.

[Denis_999]

I look at a neat little toilet house... pardon me, a "pillbox" made of blocks with rising armored shutters and loopholes. Yeah, the Suomi are EVEN MORE naive than the IDF was before the Lebanese saga. For drones, this is all NOT serious, just a passing target.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Denis_999

I look at a neat little toilet house... pardon, a "pillbox" made of blocks with rising armored shutters and loopholes.

Yes. Pastoral. They even took the trouble to plant a little tree (birch?) in front of the door...
P.S. Does anyone still bother with the illustrations on VO?

[sub307]

Quote: tralflot1832

We will not attack there, but in another place.

And what...,"we" were going to attack...?

[novel66]

Not yet, but once we finish with Ukrainians and the Tribalts - the Finns are next

[tralflot1832]

Quote: Fachmann

Andrey, Happy May Day greetings from sunny Frankfurt!
It's 26⁰ today and it's a day off.

Thanks, Evgeniy. Greetings, not from sunny Sochi today—they're threatening a downpour, but I'm at home at work, preparing for the NHL. Not to be confused with the Canadian NHL. I liked this from Germany today: a millionaire turned out to be a man of his word, giving a whale one last chance. Now it all depends on the "animal." If he wants to, he will live.

[K-50]

Finnish troops have intensified their efforts to build fortified areas near the Russian border.

Judging by the photo, it is not the "Mannerheim Line" at all.
If we took the one made of concrete, granite, and basalt back then, we won't even consider this one made of, let's say, clay and sticks. After the artillery and bombs, there'll be nothing left there, just rubble and corpses.

[Denis_999]

Unless... they are NOT trying to push these "utility blocks" (like some kind of children's fortifications!) on the border onto us as deliberate disinformation, with the aim of relaxing us.

[K-50]

Quote: Denis_999

Unless... they are NOT trying to push these "utility blocks" (like some kind of children's fortifications!) on the border onto us as deliberate disinformation, with the aim of relaxing us.

Let them do whatever they want.
This would be important if Russia had any plans for expansion into dates. Since there are no such plans, they can go crazy in their own way. As they say, it doesn't affect the speed.

[snow mountain]

Quote: Vasyan1971

For maximum performance Mannerheim is needed..

He's gone now. The plaque was recently removed from the building in St. Petersburg.

[sub307]

Quote: novel xnumx

Not yet, but once we finish with Ukrainians and the Tribalts - the Finns are next

"God willing" started with "Ukrainians"finish in the foreseeable future...With the "tribals..."? Ah..., what - are there such plans?

[Pravodel]

The Finnish army demonstrated the construction of fortified areas near the Russian border.

Are they building a new Mannerheim or Maginot Line!? What are those figs on the border saying: We won't let the Russian barbarians into Chukhonia!

[isv000]

Quote: The Truth

Are they building a new Mannerheim or Maginot Line!? What are those figs on the border saying: We won't let the Russian barbarians into Chukhonia!

I've seen enough drunken dainties in Murmansk - our modern homeless people are much more cultured!

[tralflot1832]

Already twice drunk Swedes stormed the border crossings between Sweden and Russia, shouting "My soul is burning from Western injustice." The Germans and Finns are smarter, we are lost - please forgive us. So it's bullshit that the Finns are mining the border.

[kamakama]

Original. They reported a 5% budget waste and pulled off such nonsense that Mannerheim would be crying in his grave. Permanent wooden fortifications in a swampy area—that's seriously cool!

[isv000]

Quote: kamakama

Long-term wooden fortifications in swampy areas are awesome!

It would be fine if it were made of pine, but it’s made of birch!

[tralflot1832]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

We will not attack there, but in another place.

Well, yes, the sofa is the perfect place to step.

I don't step on the couch in Ukraine, but Finland and Norway are my home. I would wipe Rovaniemi off the face of the earth for its treatment of the Finnish Sami.

[Alexander]

The question is, why? And most importantly, how long can they withstand an RA attack? Considering NATO is unlikely to come to their aid!

[Kmet]

The Finnish army demonstrated the construction of fortified areas near the Russian border.

Let them dig. Satellites see everything. In the conditions of modern warfare, this won't help much, and they won't stand on ceremony if a fight breaks out. The main thing is to have enough for everyone.

[agond]

Quote: kamakama

Original... Long-term wooden fortifications in swampy terrain - that's awesome!

The photo shows the unfinished formwork; when the concrete is poured, the thickness of the walls and ceiling will be about half a meter.

[isv000]

Quote: agond

The photo shows the unfinished formwork; when the concrete is poured, the thickness of the walls and ceiling will be about half a meter.

What about a mine in the door? Or a grenade in the ventilation?

[drags33]

The frontal armor (not concrete!) of a modern tank can be up to 1 meter thick (for example, on the Leopard 2A6)... And it can penetrate!!! And if you use a thermal barrier, no amount of concrete will save you!

[Earl]

It seems like the scum is preparing for the Winter War. Dugouts and other mysterious structures are unlikely to help them against the thermal barrier.

[ALCA056000]

So... it's not clear, are they digging swamps or not?

[isv000]

Are they going to sell beer at the beer stalls made of blocks? With enough force, you could pierce them with rebar...

[drags33]

And these are "fortifications"? Made of planks and shit? And when they run out of planks, they'll only make shit...