Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Share
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12240
    Points : 12719
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  George1 on Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:38 pm

    The Winter War was a military conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland in 1939–1940. It began with the Soviet invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939 (three months after the outbreak of World War II), and ended with the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940.
    The League of Nations deemed the attack illegal and expelled the Soviet Union from the League on 14 December 1939.

    The Red Army faced a disastrously underestimated opponent, suffering a series of embarrassing defeats.

    However in 1940 the Soviets reorganized their forces and mauled the enemy in a final great offensive. Mannerheim, the Finnish commander, then advised his government to negotiate peace on Soviet terms. Recognizing that they had lost the war, the Finns wisely chose to settle early with the Soviets, while there was still potential for a relatively lenient peace treaty. In the end, the Finns retained their independence, but ceded huge tracts of territory, and resources, to the victorious Soviets.


    Last edited by George1 on Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12240
    Points : 12719
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  George1 on Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:39 pm

    This war came as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that gave a great opportunity to Soviet Union to recover the provinces of Imperial Russia that lost during the chaos of the October Revolution and Russian Civil War
    avatar
    fredleander

    Posts : 27
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2011-07-25
    Location : Stockholm

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  fredleander on Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:52 pm

    George1 wrote:This war came as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that gave a great opportunity to Soviet Union to recover the provinces of Imperial Russia that lost during the chaos of the October Revolution and Russian Civil War

    As for recovering provinces of Imperial Russia, I believe the Soviet Union offered twice as much land to the Finns as they asked for. Certainly less valuable land but that their wish to expand their forward defense line was valid was proven by history.

    Fred
    avatar
    Battalion0415

    Posts : 118
    Points : 125
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 32

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  Battalion0415 on Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:38 pm

    85000 finnish soldiers against half million soldiers from Soviet. Great tactics from leader Stalin.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:29 am

    85000 finnish soldiers against half million soldiers from Soviet. Great tactics from leader Stalin.

    During WWII the US decided to attack one of the northern islands between Alaska and Japan.

    they mounted a huge assault and lost 24 men in the attack... there were no Japanese on the island.

    Great tactics from worlds only superpower. Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:44 am

    GarryB wrote:
    85000 finnish soldiers against half million soldiers from Soviet. Great tactics from leader Stalin.

    During WWII the US decided to attack one of the northern islands between Alaska and Japan.

    they mounted a huge assault and lost 24 men in the attack... there were no Japanese on the island.

    Great tactics from worlds only superpower.  Rolling Eyes

    At least the US didn't lose hundreds of thousands of its soldiers due to gross incompetence, like the Red Army did due to Stalin.

    Let's not whitewash how criminally incompetent he was.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:35 am

    TR1 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    85000 finnish soldiers against half million soldiers from Soviet. Great tactics from leader Stalin.

    During WWII the US decided to attack one of the northern islands between Alaska and Japan.

    they mounted a huge assault and lost 24 men in the attack... there were no Japanese on the island.

    Great tactics from worlds only superpower.  Rolling Eyes

    At least the US didn't lose hundreds of thousands of its soldiers due to gross incompetence, like the Red Army did due to Stalin.

    Let's not whitewash how criminally incompetent he was.

    Sure, because he directed every single regiment,brigade and division himself and his generals drunk vodka and played balalaika doing nothing else...what is criminal is the education and simplicity some people put to light when it comes to history, trying always to push the agenda that those were "dictatorships" were only one person was responsible for everything, with this agenda that is constantly pushed it is impossible today for younger generations to imagine that those past dictatorships worked the same way todays dictatorships like US work, with lot of sub-assholes that share all the work of war crimes which people tend to believe that this fact somehow makes the todays warlords of NATO not dictators and not bad people.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 am

    At least the US didn't lose hundreds of thousands of its soldiers due to gross incompetence, like the Red Army did due to Stalin.

    Let's not whitewash how criminally incompetent he was.

    No, the US lost very few soldiers in comparison... mainly because they waited until the germans had largely been beaten before they stepped up to the plate in 1944.

    It was the sort of plan Stalin would have come up with... let them fight amongst themselves and then join in when it was clear who was going to win, on the winning side, so they get to pretend after the war that they won largely by themselves...

    Stalin was many things but I seem to remember the western allies collapsing in the face of smaller numbers of german forces later on in the war... I am surprised the British didn't blame Stalin for Dunkirk... The Germans only stopped by the Channel... I wonder how those super soldiers would have done in the forests of Finland...

    Most of the imperial wars the Brits and French did so well at often involved machine gunning natives armed with little more than spears... how would they have done at the start of WWII with mostly rifles against Fins with SMGs in the forest.

    But no, everything bad that happened was Stalins fault... and every mistake the German officers made was Hitlers fault... if only they let the generals do what they wanted and both sides would have won... or perhaps they would still be fighting now...
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:44 am

    hmm, i always felt skeptical about simo hayha. i mean arctic is hell of a hard environment to fight - the cold kills more than enemy action in most cases and it is literally frozen hell for snipers., and you expect me to believe a single dude can rack up 500 kills using rifle with iron sights only in 100 days with each day only a few hours of light?
    not to mention there is a dearth of any other high kill count finnish snipers- for such a supposedly target rich environment surely others would have been on in the fun?, or were they all "simo hayha"?
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12240
    Points : 12719
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:40 am

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:55 am

    or were they all "simo hayha"?

    I must say I have a problem with this finnish sniper. The vast majority of his kills were reportedly with a SMG, which, in my opinion should not count towards his tally of kills as a sniper... I am sure there are plenty of MG teams that could claim "sniper" kills in the tens of thousands during the stalemate of WWI on the western front alone, while artillery and air power could easily claim kills in large numbers too.

    A sniper is like a big game hunter so personal tallies make sense... just like fighter pilots, though in the latter case they count aircraft rather than human lives.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:16 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I must say I have a problem with this finnish sniper. The vast majority of his kills were reportedly with a SMG, which, in my opinion should not count towards his tally of kills as a sniper... I am sure there are plenty of MG teams that could claim "sniper" kills in the tens of thousands during the stalemate of WWI on the western front alone, while artillery and air power could easily claim kills in large numbers too.

    A sniper is like a big game hunter so personal tallies make sense... just like fighter pilots, though in the latter case they count aircraft rather than human lives.
    and that just makes it a lot more unbelievable for me- close up firefights with automatic weapons fire is very, very risky business.
    1 man with an SMG is no match for a platoon worth of conscript armed with the same weapon, the difference in firepower is just too high unless you have some supernatural invisibility and jumping like that quiet chick in the new MGS.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:43 am

    That was the key though... the Fins weren't super soldiers, they just had the right weapons and the right tactics... in the close in environment of a forest the Fins had SMGs while the Soviets mostly had rifles and MGs and the wrong tactics.

    Fighting on the eastern front in Mongolia against the Japanese showed the Soviets were not totally inept, they did rather well there but most western sources emphasise the war against Finland and ignore the war against the inferior Japanese... very much racism because the Semi Euro Soviets were expected to defeat the asian japanese forces, but against a european force the half asian soviets were taught a lesson even if they did prevale with numbers in the end.

    Reality is that those same inferior Japanese forces then went on to hand the Americans a stinging defeat in the Phillipines and elsewhere and pushed back all the European colonial powers like France in Indochina (now Vientam) and of course the british out of all their little colonial asian countries.

    Back to the original point... one guy with a SMG against lots of enemy with SMGs would be over fairly shortly... one guy in a Forest who is familiar with the forest and is armed with a SMG against large numbers of enemy troops armed with rifles in an ambush situation...
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:33 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Back to the original point... one guy with a SMG against lots of enemy with SMGs would be over fairly shortly... one guy in a Forest who is familiar with the forest and is armed with a SMG against large numbers of enemy troops armed with rifles in an ambush situation...
    true, but with the large amount of guys in a patrol even armed only with rifles and a machinegun or a couple you can expect them to start jumping into cover against someone with smg in ambush situation very quickly-can't miss getting direction of fire from automatic weapons at close ranges, and then opening fire into whatever bush, snow pile, or tree those came from. lots of rifle fire and grenades plus machinegun a couple of moments later should keep the lone ambusher down and if he keeps down he is eventually finished. ofc. terrain should provide some respite from return fire until the ambusher can get out of dodge but as i said this is very risky(with arty on the other side is even more so) even then and very often results in the SMG-user dead before the fabled half of 700 kills can be made.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12240
    Points : 12719
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  George1 on Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:05 am

    A statement by Putin regarding Winter War before some years:

    Russian President Vladimir Putin says that the Soviet Union launched the Winter War with Finland in order to “correct mistakes” that had been made when Finland gained its independence in 1917.

    “The border was just 20 kilometres from St Petersburg and that was a significantly major threat to a city of five million,” said Putin on Thursday, addressing the Russian Military Historical Society at Novo-Ogaryovo, one of his official residences near Moscow. The Bolsheviks later realised that the agreed border was too close to the city, known in the Soviet era as Petrograd and then Leningrad.

    Putin says the Red Army sustained heavy losses because of errors, but that Stalin mobilised it to make Finland "feel all the power of the Russian, then Soviet state," according to Russian news agencies.


    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/putin_winter_war_aimed_at_correcting_border_mistakes/6539940
    avatar
    fredleander

    Posts : 27
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2011-07-25
    Location : Stockholm

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  fredleander on Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:03 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    85000 finnish soldiers against half million soldiers from Soviet. Great tactics from leader Stalin.

    During WWII the US decided to attack one of the northern islands between Alaska and Japan.

    they mounted a huge assault and lost 24 men in the attack... there were no Japanese on the island.

    Great tactics from worlds only superpower.  Rolling Eyes

    At least the US didn't lose hundreds of thousands of its soldiers due to gross incompetence, like the Red Army did due to Stalin.

    Let's not whitewash how criminally incompetent he was.

    Tactics are not decided by state leaders.

    Fred
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 999
    Points : 1058
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:05 pm

    First - the Red Army was just a year after the Great Purge, moreover it was starting the process of expansion - lots of officers were freshly promoted and inexperienced.

    Second - the Red Army was trained to conduct large scale offensives on open plains, not forest operations in heavy snow, Finns were trained to conduct just that. It would end up the same if the French and British were fighting the FInns and if the Germans were, they would still end up with heavy casualties (Panzer divisions are useless in forest)

    Thied - the USSR expected a proletarian revolution to erupt right after the war starts... for reasons only known to them.


    All that mess was vaguely simialr to the First Chechen War - the Russians sent mostly green, poorly commanded troops to fight a determined enemy and lost. However, lessions were learned and later Russia sent a task force composed of well paid, well trained and motivated soldiers with adequate equipment and better planning - and won the war easily.


    avatar
    fredleander

    Posts : 27
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2011-07-25
    Location : Stockholm

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  fredleander on Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:31 pm

    Think about it - what would have happened if the Soviets had not gone into the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement and taken control of eastern Poland, the Baltic states and expanded their buffer zone around Leningrad and on the Arctic Sea? Hitler would have had that much shorter distance to reach Moscow.

    Before the war Stalin/Molotov tried to get an agreement with the Western states - Britain, France, Poland and Chechoslovakia - a defense association against Hitler. The French and Chechs were willing, the British preferred Hitler to the Russians and the Poles were shit-scared to have the Russians to eventually come their aid - if so, would they ever get their country back? The essence is that the Soviets tried, but were rejected by the West. Stalin, and everybody else, knew what was Hitler's ultimate goal, so what should he do?

    OK, if the Winter War hadn't happened the Finns may not have gone along with the Germans but Stalin could not be sure about that, with the experiences from the recent Finnish Civil War in mind. This should also be coupled with the Baltic states' animosity towards the Soviet communist regime.

    History repeats itself. Today, the Finns, Poles and Balts behave just as idiotic as they did before WW2. Instead of developing healthy, peaceful conditions with their powerful neighbour they are running the errands of a declared enemy of Russia - NATO. They live in a dream-world where they believe they shall get any real assistance from the West when the war breaks - as did the Poles.

    How can Putin/Russia NOT act, like Stalin/Soviet did before WW2, they way they have - if they have, considering the behaviour of the West. Looking at US media and political leaders, the NATO-governing US is already practically at war with Russia. They have been edging in on Russia ever since the end of the Cold War. Actually, they have never ended the Cold War. The final nail in the coffin of peace is the US/NATO taking control of Ukraine and Georgia. What are the Ukrainians thinking? Shall Putin just sit there as they are pissing on him every day? How could he not see to that Crimea, an original Russian territory, was brought back under Russian control - apart from the fact that there was a referendum about it? Should he let Russia's declared enemy Ukraine control his naval bases in the Black Sea? Sebastopol is one thing but Crimea also controls the approaches to the Azov Sea.

    It's called REAL-politik - Europe should look around and show some more realism, too.

    Fred

    P.S.: Now the "neutral" countries of Sweden and Finland are executing military exercises together with NATO.
    avatar
    fredleander

    Posts : 27
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2011-07-25
    Location : Stockholm

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  fredleander on Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:19 pm

    George1 wrote:This war came as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that gave a great opportunity to Soviet Union to recover the provinces of Imperial Russia that lost during the chaos of the October Revolution and Russian Civil War

    Did they use that opportunity? To recover the Finnish province?

    Fred
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 999
    Points : 1058
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:21 pm

    Except US now also has China to deal with. US share of the world's GDP is now at the lowest point since late XIXth century or so. Soon they will run out of resources to fight a cold war on two fronts - either they abandon Asia for China and concentrate on propping up Europe against Russia or they leave Europe on her own and concentrate on China. There will be no alternatives to that.

    Europe probably wont be able to stand the Russian influence. it is too internally divided to form a monolithic bloc and aside from Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics virtually nobody is willing to fight Russia if their survival does not depend on it.



    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 999
    Points : 1058
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:31 pm

    As for Finland - relations with Russia have improved significantly in recent years, economic ties are on the rise (9 mln border crossings in 2017, Finnish companies have 12 bln Euro worth of investments in Russia)
    avatar
    fredleander

    Posts : 27
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2011-07-25
    Location : Stockholm

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  fredleander on Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:38 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Except US now also has China to deal with. US share of the world's GDP is now at the lowest point since late XIXth century or so. Soon they will run out of resources to fight a cold war on two fronts - either they abandon Asia for China and concentrate on propping up Europe against Russia or they leave Europe on her own and concentrate on China. There will be no alternatives to that.
    That sounds reasonable.

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Europe probably wont be able to stand the Russian influence. it is too internally divided to form a monolithic bloc and aside from Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics virtually nobody is willing to fight Russia if their survival does not depend on it.
    Why should any European country want to stand against or "fight" Russia? Russia can offer Europe much more then the US can. Russia wants to be left alone. The US is meddling in everything to keep the world economy under their own financiers' wings.

    USA is getting desperate. Syria is slipping, Iraq is slipping, Afghanistan is slipping, Turkey is slipping - they're getting nowhere with Iran, Saudi Arabia looks very fragile. Desperate persons and animals (and nations) are dangerous.

    Fred
    avatar
    fredleander

    Posts : 27
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2011-07-25
    Location : Stockholm

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  fredleander on Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:45 pm


    The Democrats won the "House". No Russian "meddling" this time…?... Wink

    Fred
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:36 am


    Tactics are not decided by state leaders.

    Fred

    The fact of the matter is that if you took any European conscript army into the forests of Finland armed with bolt action rifles to fight against local ski troops armed with SMGs who know the area and are expert in ambushes then it is always going to be a massacre and very one sided.

    The bloody mindedness of the Soviet Generals is no different to the bloody mindedness of the western european generals on both sides during WWI...

    First - the Red Army was just a year after the Great Purge, moreover it was starting the process of expansion - lots of officers were freshly promoted and inexperienced.

    They didn't know what they were doing except from a text book that was likely written just after WWI, and of course there was that fear that the last boss was taken away... don't follow orders and you will be next...

    Second - the Red Army was trained to conduct large scale offensives on open plains, not forest operations in heavy snow, Finns were trained to conduct just that. It would end up the same if the French and British were fighting the FInns and if the Germans were, they would still end up with heavy casualties (Panzer divisions are useless in forest)

    The Germans were not fully mechanised but were very well trained and experienced and had SMG in some numbers... but the Finns knew what they were doing and would have been the worst possible enemy in that sort of scenario.

    Thied - the USSR expected a proletarian revolution to erupt right after the war starts... for reasons only known to them.

    Most big powers overestimated their own forces... there is the Hitler quote that all they have to do is kick in the door and the whole house will collapse regarding the Soviets... the only problem was they seemed to have an endless supply of doors needing to be kicked down...

    All that mess was vaguely simialr to the First Chechen War - the Russians sent mostly green, poorly commanded troops to fight a determined enemy and lost. However, lessions were learned and later Russia sent a task force composed of well paid, well trained and motivated soldiers with adequate equipment and better planning - and won the war easily.

    Exactly... a mix of the right tactics and experience makes all the difference... they used bad tactics which meant few troops survived to gain experience... so it was not the fault of the front line soldier... it was commands tactics...

    Think about it - what would have happened if the Soviets had not gone into the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement and taken control of eastern Poland, the Baltic states and expanded their buffer zone around Leningrad and on the Arctic Sea? Hitler would have had that much shorter distance to reach Moscow.

    The thing that annoys me is that most in the west think that the RM agreement meant the Soviets and Germans were allies... in actual fact it was a non aggression pact... if they were allies they wouldn't need a non aggression pact.

    Even if Hitler had occupied Moscow I really don't think it would have changed much... Napoleon occupied Moscow too.... didn't help.

    The Soviets weren't going to suddenly think... oh well... they got Moscow... might as well give up and collaborate while the murder us into extinction...

    It was no accident that 20 odd million Soviets were killed during WWII... the eastern front was basically an open air concentration camp as far as Germany was concerned...

    Before the war Stalin/Molotov tried to get an agreement with the Western states - Britain, France, Poland and Chechoslovakia - a defense association against Hitler. The French and Chechs were willing, the British preferred Hitler to the Russians and the Poles were shit-scared to have the Russians to eventually come their aid - if so, would they ever get their country back? The essence is that the Soviets tried, but were rejected by the West. Stalin, and everybody else, knew what was Hitler's ultimate goal, so what should he do?

    Stalin did have talks with poland and the uk and they basically rejected his ideas... so at the end of the day he had two options... an agreement with germany that gave him half of poland, or nothing and germany half of poland closer to Moscow... the choice was pretty obvious.

    Everyone knew war was coming... Stalin was hoping Hitler would turn west after poland and fight it out with the British and he expected the British to fake intelligence that would make it seem like the Soviet Union was the target for Germany... which is why he was in denial for the first few days... he knew the UK wanted him to make a mistake to provoke the Germans so they would go east and save the west from attack...

    OK, if the Winter War hadn't happened the Finns may not have gone along with the Germans but Stalin could not be sure about that, with the experiences from the recent Finnish Civil War in mind. This should also be coupled with the Baltic states' animosity towards the Soviet communist regime.

    Before the Soviets attacked the Finns Stalin demanded land... mostly around Leningrad to make it easier to defend, which the Finns refused. Stalin invaded and at great cost the Finns capitulated but Stalin demanded rather more territory than he had asked for before the conflict... that was because of the losses incurred.

    But anyway after the germans invaded the soviet union and the finns joined the nazis they only took back the territory Stalin had taken and took not one step into the Soviet Union despite germany telling them to. Because of this Stalin didn't really punish the Fins by demanding land or occupation.... certainly by the end of WWII the Soviet forces were nothing like what they had been and taking Finland would have not been too hard, though their would have been losses, it would have been terrible for both sides.

    History repeats itself. Today, the Finns, Poles and Balts behave just as idiotic as they did before WW2. Instead of developing healthy, peaceful conditions with their powerful neighbour they are running the errands of a declared enemy of Russia - NATO. They live in a dream-world where they believe they shall get any real assistance from the West when the war breaks - as did the Poles.

    They talk about terrible occupation and oppression by the Soviets after WWII, yet ignore that the UK and US signed off on occupation areas when drawing up plans for post WWII areas of influence...

    The Russians have their own ports... they don't need to use the ports in the Baltic countries... it is all their loss.

    They have been edging in on Russia ever since the end of the Cold War. Actually, they have never ended the Cold War. The final nail in the coffin of peace is the US/NATO taking control of Ukraine and Georgia. What are the Ukrainians thinking? Shall Putin just sit there as they are pissing on him every day? How could he not see to that Crimea, an original Russian territory, was brought back under Russian control - apart from the fact that there was a referendum about it? Should he let Russia's declared enemy Ukraine control his naval bases in the Black Sea? Sebastopol is one thing but Crimea also controls the approaches to the Azov Sea.

    But don't you love the irony... there is no way Russia could have legitimately gotten back control of the Crimea because their referendums were being ignored... if NATO plans had gone to plan I suspect they would have had Sevastopol as a NATO Naval base controlling all of the Black Sea with US ships based there on a rotational basis.

    Instead the Crimea is back as part of Russia and the Ukraine is torn to pieces and in economic ruin.

    It is pretty much a case of waiting to see what Ukrainian elections manage to achieve... change or more of the same... change might improve things, but I still think partition of the country is the most likely result... those parts of the Ukraine that are being shelled by Kiev are being oppressed like Kosovo wasn't and need independence from the Ukraine.... it is OK because this case is Unique too.

    Did they use that opportunity? To recover the Finnish province?

    Really only the Baltic countries that were released from the Russian empire, were taken back by the Soviet government after WWII too.

    Except US now also has China to deal with. US share of the world's GDP is now at the lowest point since late XIXth century or so. Soon they will run out of resources to fight a cold war on two fronts - either they abandon Asia for China and concentrate on propping up Europe against Russia or they leave Europe on her own and concentrate on China. There will be no alternatives to that.

    The American solution seems to be spend more money on defence and print more money... when the dollar is the international trade currency that can work, but their actions are making that change pretty fast... there is no way they will cut defence spending so the money has to come from somewhere else and that is going to hurt.

    Ironic that if the US was a real democracy and there was no election cheating... Sanders would have beaten Trump and they might have been much more reasonable and sensible and not about to jump off the edge...

    Europe probably wont be able to stand the Russian influence. it is too internally divided to form a monolithic bloc and aside from Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics virtually nobody is willing to fight Russia if their survival does not depend on it.

    Now that the US is scrapping the INF treaty I hope the Russians develop nuclear armed IRBMs and just threaten to aim thousands of them at any European country with US troops or missiles stationed there... make it clear that the US bases will be targeted but also the civilian population of that country will also be obliterated. Make it clear this is not about invasion or occupation... it is about destroying an enemy force and those that support it. No foreign military bases and you will not be targeted.

    As for Finland - relations with Russia have improved significantly in recent years, economic ties are on the rise (9 mln border crossings in 2017, Finnish companies have 12 bln Euro worth of investments in Russia)

    Well that sounds positive...

    USA is getting desperate. Syria is slipping, Iraq is slipping, Afghanistan is slipping, Turkey is slipping - they're getting nowhere with Iran, Saudi Arabia looks very fragile. Desperate persons and animals (and nations) are dangerous.

    Their most lethal weapon has not been nukes... it has been isolation and poverty... look at Cuba or North Korea... there is actually no reason why they need to be in the state they are except the concerted efforts of the US to isolate them and make them poor. China is also a communist country but the west needed someone to make cheap shit for their consumer societies and so their manufacturing companies moved production to China and they made some sensible choices and now look at them... who said communism doesn't work... and without the waterboarding and illegal detentions in Guantanimo Bay...

    The US fears being poor, and has done all in its power to stop anyone else that it does not control from becoming wealthy and independent, yet its desperate actions to prevent Russia and China from doing their own thing have actually made them stronger and more independent of the international organisations the US controls and uses to control.

    The Democrats won the "House". No Russian "meddling" this time…?...

    I see US media showing black women complaining that white women voted for republicans and that they should have voted for black women apparently.

    It is funny you can call someone sexist or racist for not voting the way you want them to vote... how dumb are these people?
    avatar
    Odin of Ossetia

    Posts : 259
    Points : 330
    Join date : 2015-07-03

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  Odin of Ossetia on Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:58 pm

    Finns "great warriors"?

    That is delusional.


    They were 800 years under Swedish rule, and over 100 years under Russian rule, not counting the period Karelia was under Novgorodian control during the medieval times, and later, during the 18th century, when the region was part of the Russian Empire.


    Also do not forget the Mannerheim Line, which the Finns were constructing ever since the 1920's. Even a very proficient military would have had a difficult time breaching such a well-constructed fortified line, and the Red Army eventually breached it.

    Fortifications are a major force multiplier; for example you need a numerical superiority of at least 3:1 or 4:1 to even match troops hold up in a well fortified position. For a very formidable fortress that ratio increases to at least 5:1 or even 6:1.

    And these are ratios meant only to "match" these fortified troops, not to surpass them.

    That is why the Polish troops managed to halt a whole German advance for at least a couple of days at the Battle of Wizna in 1939, despite being outnumbered by 40:1. The Polish defenders in the Wizna area had the luxury of defending a fortified line with a network of bunkers. The Germans literally resorted to dirty tactics in order to breach the Polish defences there, like literally threatening to execute prisoners.


    Also the Soviets were caught off guard by the easy annexations of the Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, also of the eastern pre-war Poland, coupled with the false hope for internal support in Finland due to the history of the Finnish Civil War, a support that never really materialized.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:51 pm