Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Estonian "freedom fighters" did in Pskov region of Russia during WWII.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
    Btw, it was the Soviet Army that took huge casualties during the Winter War. How incompetent can an Army of a big nation be if it cannot defeat an army of a nation with only 3.5 million people and which is not even adequately prepared for a prolonged fight?
    Victory is not defined with the calculation of killed soldiers of both sides.

    In December of 1939 Finland fought not against Red Army but only against some part of troops of Leningrad Military District which were unprepared for war against Finland.

    Later Red Army concentrated enough forces and broke Mannerheim Line.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by pp(est)
      Look at the title of this thread.
      So what? I spoke not about Estonia only later.

      Given that their information regarding Estonia was BS, I think it is fairly safe to assume that it was so also regarding Latvia. I am 99% certain that this applies to this newest bit as well.
      It is only the problem of you that you believe in some things. You live in the world of your fantasies.

      You believe in opinions which you want to believe.

      So I can assume that you know everything that goes on in neighbouring Turkey, China and Mongolia as well?!?
      If you do not know situation in Latvia so do not speak about it...

      Next time I talk with my Latvian colleagues, I will ask them how many people there were in reality and whether they saw the Red Army veterans brandish their decorations. I expect the answer to be similar to what I saw with my own eyes here - a couple of hundred people and plenty of old Russian guys wearing all sorts of medals.
      I gave enough proofs.

      I suppose that it is very easy to check the existense of Latvian law with the prohibition to carry decorations.

      And it is interesting what will you say when you will chreck it...

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by pp(est)
        I don't want you to repeat anything, but I would like it if you could summarise your views so that I and others could get an idea what you actually believe in. You repeat Soviet and some newer Russian propaganda almost verbatim and sometimes say you also have some critical views about it all, but never elaborate.
        I said enough earlier.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
          I dunno why I even bother, since Andrey is just as thick as neo-nazis:
          ...

          When Stalin started making propositions for Finland, USSR was allied with Nazi Germany. Maybe you should understand this fact in the first place, although I understand your state suppressed the fact during and after the war against Germany.
          The question was about trusting to Stalin. It looks like Hitler (with whom the Finns had agreements) was more reliable person to whom it was possible to trust.

          Is it understandable to you that USSR was allied with Nazi Germany, and USSR and Finland had three agreements of non-aggression pact?
          I explained situation with artillery? How is it related with your words? I spoke from where the Finns could get the powerful guns which could hit Leningrad.

          While it is true that the Finnish Army wouldn't had survived another month of the Winter War, it still had repulsed the invasion, and Soviet occupation. In August 1944 Finnish Army had never been more stronger and could easily repulse any attempts of further Soviet offensives (see the last "motti"-battles near Ilomantsi). The cost-effect was so high for the Ruskies that favourable peace agreement was chosen instead. There's no doubt for Finns that after Germany had crumbled USSR was too powerful an enemy and it led to a wide range of changes in Finnish politics (namely suppressing any anti-Soviet movements) in accordance with the armistice agreement.

          Finnish communists with the help of the Soviets tried to turn Finland into a communistic muppet state after the war, but thanks to our democratic traditions it didn't happen.
          Oh, yeah, you suppose that USSR was afraid to fight against Finland in 1944.

          Well Finns chose the Axis side because USSR couldn't be trusted (see the Winter War). Still Finland was not officially allied to Germany, although de facto. That's why FE United States didn't declare war against Finland. USSR was an evil side fighting along the good guys against one evil nation.
          Yeah, and the Finns, according you, were good guys always.... ha-ha-ha.

          No. The Soviets were bad guys in Winter War but they were good guys in 1941-45. The Finns were good guys in Winter War but they were bad guys in 1941-44.

          The Finns were crazy if they didn't trust to Stalin but trusted to Hitler...

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Andrey
            Victory is not defined with the calculation of killed soldiers of both sides.

            In December of 1939 Finland fought not against Red Army but only against some part of troops of Leningrad Military District which were unprepared for war against Finland.

            Later Red Army concentrated enough forces and broke Mannerheim Line.
            You wrote that Finns suffered huge casualties, which was BS. Soviets managed to break Mannerheim-line later, but the line wasn't even that heavily fortified. Your propaganda has made it sound unbreakable to cover the incompetence of the Red Army. Reds couldn't even capture Viipuri with their overwhelming odds and that's quite telling.

            Having said that, the resources of a small nation was drained by March, and with no real help in sight, despite the promises of England and France, it was better to sign an armistice with the possibility to get our lands back later...
            “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” -1984 about the Big Lie

            Comment


            • #66
              Andrey,

              Look at what happened when the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians trusted Stalin! To many Westerners, a choice between Hitler and Stalin is a choice between the Devil (Hitler) and the Deep Blue Sea (Stalin). There is not much differance to choose from!

              The main thing is the Finns would have preferred to do the same thing the Swedes did and that was avoid getting shot at by either party. There was no legal way for a Finnish government to "swap" territory. The government would have been kicked out of office. This may not seem scary to some, but elected governments do have to worry about this.

              One thing not mentioned so far is the territory demanded to be given up in Finland was developed territory, including the second largest city in Finland, Viipuri. The territory offered was forestland, with no roads. If the Finns would have swapped, they would also have given up their only defense line, a series of machinegun emplacements. What would have stopped the Red Army from walking in then? Would Stalin have let the inhabitants of the area he wanted to just evacuate? That was a lot of Finns!

              The Finns were not Saints, but they obviously had something to fear from Stalin, their next door neighbor, and were not as scared of the bad guy down the street (Hitler). A poor choice, indeed!

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Andrey
                ...

                The question was about trusting to Stalin. It looks like Hitler (with whom the Finns had agreements) was more reliable person to whom it was possible to trust.
                Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany so no German help for Finland was in sight. What eventually happened to the Baltic States with their appeasement politics is enough to prove that Finnish politicians got it right and Stalin could not be trusted (Western Allies found it out much later). When USSR continued with its aggression politics after the Winter War, it was relief for Finns that Germany had decided to go against USSR, and gave the possibility to get our lands back (and some bonus, no use of denying that).



                Originally posted by Andrey
                I explained situation with artillery? How is it related with your words? I spoke from where the Finns could get the powerful guns which could hit Leningrad.
                Are you really that stupid? Finland and USSR had three agreements of non-agression pact, and Finland was no threat to USSR if left alone. There was no guns near Leningrad and no use for them. Those imaginary guns were just an excuse for the Ruskies to get some action, if you know what I mean.



                Originally posted by Andrey
                Oh, yeah, you suppose that USSR was afraid to fight against Finland in 1944.
                You really are a stupid prick. What I said was the cost-effect for the Soviets was too high. There's no denying that if Stalin had decided to conquer Finland at all cost, it would have eventually happened (given that it would have been politically feasible).



                Originally posted by Andrey
                Yeah, and the Finns, according you, were good guys always.... ha-ha-ha.

                No. The Soviets were bad guys in Winter War but they were good guys in 1941-45. The Finns were good guys in Winter War but they were bad guys in 1941-44.

                The Finns were crazy if they didn't trust to Stalin but trusted to Hitler...
                Well I can live the fact that the Finns were bad guys '41-'44 as long as it is not in the traditional Soviet propaganda way. Hitler proved to be much more trustworthy than Stalin since Hitler didn't have any plans of conquering Finland by the time.
                “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” -1984 about the Big Lie

                Comment


                • #68
                  I concur with my finish brethren.

                  I spoke from where the Finns could get the powerful guns which could hit Leningrad.
                  Yes, I have absolutely no doubt that Finland COULD have acquired such guns, deployed them near the border and firen upon Leningrad. The real question is WHY would we do such a thing, in reference to the sandbox-example I demonstrated earlier on. When someone much bigger and powerfull is threatening you with war, the last thing you want to do is provoke it!

                  There was no legal way for a Finnish government to "swap" territory.
                  True.

                  If the Finns would have swapped, they would also have given up their only defense line, a series of machinegun emplacements. What would have stopped the Red Army from walking in then?
                  Also true.

                  And in reference to me not being up-to-date on modern russian thinking, I am, believe me. I have given these things a lot of though. It is only interesting to me that you are on same cases sticking to views that even your current government have much abandoned.

                  And I mentioned the full history of the Mainila incident for all those who read this forum - not all are familiar with the Winter War.
                  Much like you translated that article - my point on it was not that it was no good, but that if you wish to show us something it is not a good policy to bury it under the rest of the article, unless the article serves some purpose other than stating the fact you wished to show us.
                  There's no denying that if Stalin had decided to conquer Finland at all cost, it would have eventually happened
                  I admitted this long time ago - my point was just that Stalin didn't wake up one morning and say, "komrades, let's not conquer Finland". The Finnish defensive effort gave them a good enough reason to cease the attack, both in 1940 and 1944.

                  The Finns were crazy if they didn't trust to Stalin but trusted to Hitler...
                  Based on what? Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. That's it. Stalin then again has a much, much longer list of treaties broken.
                  Tell me of a single treaty that Hitler broke with Finland prior to the breaking of the promise of no individual peace by our President in 1944 as agreed by the USSR-Finland peace treaty.
                  There is none.

                  In December of 1939 Finland fought not against Red Army but only against some part of troops of Leningrad Military District which were unprepared for war against Finland.
                  Later Red Army concentrated enough forces and broke Mannerheim Line.
                  Well, declare war and war it is that you will get - it is not our fault that the Leningrad Military District was unprepaired - of course you wish to do as much harm to your enemy before he attacks you.
                  And I wouldn't go yelling about the Mannerheim Line - it was a dug-in position reinforced with sandbags, and had a few pillboxes - and that is it. The Germans broke the Maginot line a lot easier - and it's made of concrete and steel!

                  Belgium in the start of WWI had such choice and Belgium choose "to fight" in hopeless situation.
                  Belgium had such a nice situation that the time they knew they war in war the whole country was full of german troops marching toward the French border as planned - and they took into arms to defend against an invader.

                  Your words are typical for a guy from former Axis country. It is easier to say that every soldier was a hero than to confirm that your countrymen fought for evil side.
                  My countrymen fough to preserve the Finnish indipendence in Winter War. And after that, they fought to return areas that had been taken from us, and for the part where we crossed our 1939 borders and began invading, think about it: The USSR was such a nice neighbour as to try an invade us, so it really was in our interest to destroy it. And if that wasn't going to happen, then atleast have more land to defend on, and wear the enemy out until a moment arises for to destroy the invading armies - which happened, might I add.
                  And I admitted that even Russians were heroes - only rapists and those who deliberately murdered elderly, woman and children - were evil. So that does make most of your partisans evil.
                  The only thing a man has is his honour - everything else can be taken from him by others, but only he may choose to loose his honour.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
                    You wrote that Finns suffered huge casualties, which was BS.
                    Casualties level is defined not by counting of the amount of killed soldiers of both sides. It is defined by relative casualties ratio of troops.

                    Yes, the Soviets lost a few times more soldiers than the Finns. But the Finns had less troops and their troops had very large relative casualties (% of common amount of troops). To the end of Winter War the Finns had no reserves, fortified positions to stop Red Army. Finland couldn't endure such casualties more.

                    For USSR the casualties of Winter War were completely unsignificant. USSR had enough reserves of prepared troops and of manpower in rears. USSR could easy continue the war without decreasing combat effectiveness.

                    Soviets managed to break Mannerheim-line later, but the line wasn't even that heavily fortified. Your propaganda has made it sound unbreakable to cover the incompetence of the Red Army. Reds couldn't even capture Viipuri with their overwhelming odds and that's quite telling.
                    Red Army had no time to capture Vyborg (Viipuri). It was only qustion of a few more days. But war had finished...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Pruitt
                      Andrey,

                      Look at what happened when the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians trusted Stalin! To many Westerners, a choice between Hitler and Stalin is a choice between the Devil (Hitler) and the Deep Blue Sea (Stalin). There is not much differance to choose from!
                      What did happen with them?

                      The German victory meant PHYSICAL ELEMINATION of many nations or at least COMPLETE transfering of the peoples from their homeland in the Eastern territories for giving the place for German colonists. The remaining people had to become real slaves. Here what Hitler's victory had to give them.

                      The main thing is the Finns would have preferred to do the same thing the Swedes did and that was avoid getting shot at by either party. There was no legal way for a Finnish government to "swap" territory. The government would have been kicked out of office. This may not seem scary to some, but elected governments do have to worry about this.

                      One thing not mentioned so far is the territory demanded to be given up in Finland was developed territory, including the second largest city in Finland, Viipuri. The territory offered was forestland, with no roads. If the Finns would have swapped, they would also have given up their only defense line, a series of machinegun emplacements. What would have stopped the Red Army from walking in then? Would Stalin have let the inhabitants of the area he wanted to just evacuate? That was a lot of Finns!

                      The Finns were not Saints, but they obviously had something to fear from Stalin, their next door neighbor, and were not as scared of the bad guy down the street (Hitler). A poor choice, indeed!
                      Agree.

                      But it was not good idea to trust to Hitler more than to Stalin. Hitler broke a lot of agreements to trust him. There is a Russian saying: "The fools study in own mistakes, the clever people study on other mistakes."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        To Veritas - Differ whose quote you write.

                        Originally posted by Veritas
                        Yes, I have absolutely no doubt that Finland COULD have acquired such guns, deployed them near the border and firen upon Leningrad. The real question is WHY would we do such a thing, in reference to the sandbox-example I demonstrated earlier on. When someone much bigger and powerfull is threatening you with war, the last thing you want to do is provoke it!
                        I do not speak WHY the Finns could use artillery. You said that the Finns had no possibility to hit Leningrad with guns. I showed you where the Finns could get such guns. So the threat of artillery strike against Leningrad from Finnish territory was real in CLOSE FUTURE in certain circumstance. The Finns COULD do it so the Soviet anxiety were not baseless.

                        And I mentioned the full history of the Mainila incident for all those who read this forum - not all are familiar with the Winter War.
                        No, you showed it so like you supposed that I'll dispute with it.

                        Much like you translated that article - my point on it was not that it was no good, but that if you wish to show us something it is not a good policy to bury it under the rest of the article, unless the article serves some purpose other than stating the fact you wished to show us.
                        I know what I wanted to show and all your suggestions about it are only your personal suggestions.

                        Based on what? Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. That's it. Stalin then again has a much, much longer list of treaties broken.
                        Which many treaties did Stalin break?

                        Tell me of a single treaty that Hitler broke with Finland prior to the breaking of the promise of no individual peace by our President in 1944 as agreed by the USSR-Finland peace treaty.
                        There is none.
                        Hitler broke a lot of treaties and agreements.

                        He broke Versaile agreements - he made huge army and powerful navy, he entered Ruhr region.

                        He entered Austria.

                        He broke Munich agreements of 1938 when he captured Czechislovakia.

                        He invaded and captured Poland.

                        He invaded in neutral Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway.

                        He captured Yugoslavia and Greece.

                        He attacked USSR.

                        And so on.

                        Well, declare war and war it is that you will get - it is not our fault that the Leningrad Military District was unprepaired - of course you wish to do as much harm to your enemy before he attacks you.
                        Sheik said that it was a large success when a small, unprepared to a war nation fought so long against a Great Power.

                        I showed that the situation was not so profitable to the Finns as in the first period they fought only against unprepared troops of Leningrad Military District only. The real might of USSR was shown only later when Red Army broke Mannerheim Line.

                        And I wouldn't go yelling about the Mannerheim Line - it was a dug-in position reinforced with sandbags, and had a few pillboxes - and that is it. The Germans broke the Maginot line a lot easier - and it's made of concrete and steel!
                        You do not know history of WWII!!! The Germans didn't broke Maginot Line, they outflanked it from the north through Belgium and Ardennes!!!

                        My countrymen fough to preserve the Finnish indipendence in Winter War. And after that, they fought to return areas that had been taken from us, and for the part where we crossed our 1939 borders and began invading, think about it:
                        yeah, but when USSR returned Eastern Poland which was lost in the result of Soviet-Polish war of 1920-21 so it is considered bad by you. But when Finland did the same it is good for you.

                        The USSR was such a nice neighbour as to try an invade us, so it really was in our interest to destroy it. And if that wasn't going to happen, then atleast have more land to defend on, and wear the enemy out until a moment arises for to destroy the invading armies - which happened, might I add.
                        It is anti-Russian paranoia. The Finns were ready to be an Ally of Hitler for a plot of their land. If the Soviet fought not so bravely and Hitler captured USSR so now Finland had to live in horrific world. And if Germany lost the last enemy in Europe - USSR so Hitler could do all what he wanted with Finland, Viermacht was able to break any Finnish resistance.

                        Finland couldn't destroy USSR and nothing bad happened. Finland didn't return the territories that you lost in 1940. Many Finnish soldiers had died in vain.

                        If Finland didn't join to Germany in 1941 so USSR itself never attacked Finland in WWII.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Andrey
                          Victory is not defined with the calculation of killed soldiers of both sides.

                          In December of 1939 Finland fought not against Red Army but only against some part of troops of Leningrad Military District which were unprepared for war against Finland.

                          Later Red Army concentrated enough forces and broke Mannerheim Line.
                          Actually I think the best way to measure victory or defeat is to compare the objectives of the participants to the end-result. No matter the BS, the real Soviet Russia's objective was the complete destruction of Finnish armed forces, occupation and annexation just like happened 80km to the south. Finnish objective was to maintain independence and its territorial integrity. Finland did not achieve all of its objectives, but it did achieve the most important objective.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Andrey
                            So what? I spoke not about Estonia only later.
                            Yes, you have a habit of mixing and mashing various bits and trying to confuse of which countries you speak to make it more difficult to track down the BS.

                            Originally posted by Andrey
                            If you do not know situation in Latvia so do not speak about it...
                            It isn't stopping you...


                            Originally posted by Andrey
                            I suppose that it is very easy to check the existense of Latvian law with the prohibition to carry decorations.

                            And it is interesting what will you say when you will chreck it...
                            I spoke with my Latvian colleague, who just laughed at this suggestion. There is no law against veterans brandishing their medals on May 9. Possibly the author of the article confused this with earlier times when it was prohibited to brandish medals issued by the Latvian state...


                            BTW your latest article even resorts to using the Russian Nazis as "evidence". Here is their website http://www.nbp-info.org/ I think further comments are unnecessary.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
                              Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany so no German help for Finland was in sight. What eventually happened to the Baltic States with their appeasement politics is enough to prove that Finnish politicians got it right and Stalin could not be trusted (Western Allies found it out much later).
                              Sad, but true. Our politicians thought they could trust Stalin or at least weave through the difficult times somehow without having to pick sides. All they got for their appeasment politics were either a bullet in the neck or a long train ride to Siberia in a cattle wagon. To top it off they got Andrey here claiming they deserved all they got because they were stupid enough to believe Stalin.

                              Finns certainly made the right choice and should all of this happen again we will certainly follow the Finnish example.

                              Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
                              Well I can live the fact that the Finns were bad guys '41-'44 as long as it is not in the traditional Soviet propaganda way. Hitler proved to be much more trustworthy than Stalin since Hitler didn't have any plans of conquering Finland by the time.
                              BTW Germans did made some half-hearted plans to occupy Finland in the late stages of the war. I've understood the old Finnish-Estonian hotwire was secretly kept active throughout the war so that Estonians could warn Finns of sudden German movements.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Veritas
                                Well, declare war and war it is that you will get - it is not our fault that the Leningrad Military District was unprepaired - of course you wish to do as much harm to your enemy before he attacks you.
                                Leningrad Military District was preparing for an offensive at least from the summer as they first grouped for attacking Estonia. They had most of the autumn to prepare for the invasion of Finland. What they were unprepared for was the ferocity of the defence. I think Andrey wanted again to slip the notion that somehow the Mainila shots were the cause of the war and thus the war came as a surprise.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X