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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Andrey
    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."
    Well, like with Finns, Hitler never broke any treaty with us. Stalin broke several. Among the treaties Stalin broke were the Tartu peace treaty, the non-agression treaty and the bases treaty Stalin pushed for in september 1939.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Andrey
      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.
      I doubt anybody here would have liked Hitler winning the war. I believe my Finnish friends like myself would have liked to see both Hitler and Stalin lose the war just like it happened in WWI. This objective was most definitely worth fighting for.


      Originally posted by Andrey
      If Finland didn't join to Germany in 1941 so USSR itself never attacked Finland in WWII.
      And if Stalin didn't attack Finland the Finns would never have joined Germany.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by pp(est)
        I doubt anybody here would have liked Hitler winning the war. I believe my Finnish friends like myself would have liked to see both Hitler and Stalin lose the war just like it happened in WWI. This objective was most definitely worth fighting for.
        Yeah, and the Finns decided to help to Hitler. But what if their help was significant and the Soviets lost Leningrad or Murmansk? It could change the fate of the war and Hitler could win. Wasn't it too dangerous to help to Hitler so well?

        And if Stalin didn't attack Finland the Finns would never have joined Germany.
        Yes, Stalin made strategical mistake. But the Finns had possibility to not do the mistake which they did. In 1941-44 USSR was not threat to the Finns.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by pp(est)
          Well, like with Finns, Hitler never broke any treaty with us. Stalin broke several. Among the treaties Stalin broke were the Tartu peace treaty, the non-agression treaty and the bases treaty Stalin pushed for in september 1939.
          I only repeat: "The fools study in own mistakes, the clever people study on other mistakes."

          Hitler broke many treaties and many nations that trusted to Hitler suffered from it.

          Baltic States and Finland have to study the experience of Poland, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, USSR...

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by pp(est)
            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.
            Soviet Armed Forces were ready to finish their job, it was only the question of time. Finland had no forces to continue the war.

            Politicians stopped the war.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by pp(est)
              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...
              I doubt in your intellect level. Your suggestions are vetry strange. Who did speak about "law against veterans brandishing their medals on May 9"?

              There is a Latvian law against carrying of the medals of foreign countries (it means Soviet awards also). It is not related to May, 9th. It is about each day in a year. Yeah, if you asked your Latvian colleague about "law against veterans brandishing their medals on May 9" of course he would answer that there is no such law.

              Your conclusions are very strange. If you want to ask your Latvian friend, send him complete translation of article.

              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.
              You think incorrectly.

              The article is from the site of All-Russian "Izvestia" newspaper.

              If the National-Bolshevicks use an article it doesn't mean that the article is incorrect. If the National-Bolshevicks use an article it means that the article is prifitable for them.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Andrey
                If the National-Bolshevicks use an article it doesn't mean that the article is incorrect. If the National-Bolshevicks use an article it means that the article is prifitable for them.
                Originally posted by Andrey
                Public movements were represented by the Party of the Russian speaking people “ZapChEL” (“For the Human rights in united Latvia”) and National-Bolshevicks. One of their leaders is Benes Aio, he is half Russian and half Ugandian, he has the citizenship of Latvia but doesn’t consider himself as an Afro-Latvian:

                “My Russian ancestors on mother’s line lived in this land still in the time when the Latvians were not established as a nation.” – Benes explained to me. - “I studied in historical faculty in University and I know very well the real history of Latvia. So let they will not speak me any rubbish like about “the occupation”

                Originally posted by Andrey
                There is a Latvian law against carrying of the medals of foreign countries (it means Soviet awards also). It is not related to May, 9th. It is about each day in a year. Yeah, if you asked your Latvian colleague about "law against veterans brandishing their medals on May 9" of course he would answer that there is no such law.
                No there is no such law. You can brandish whatever medals you like. There once was a short-lived proposal of similar vein. That is the small nugget of truth used in this propaganda piece to make it more believable.

                Originally posted by Andrey
                Politicians stopped the war.
                You mean Stalin. Of course, the Red Army was prepared to continue further until the last Finn was dead. However Stalin must have thought the price he would have to pay for this in the blood of the Red Army is too high for the benefit. This is the logic all small countries live by in preparing their defence. This is the cornerstone of Finnish defence today as it is the cornerstone of our defence.

                Originally posted by Andrey
                I only repeat: "The fools study in own mistakes, the clever people study on other mistakes."

                Hitler broke many treaties and many nations that trusted to Hitler suffered from it.

                Baltic States and Finland have to study the experience of Poland, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, USSR...
                Well, at the time Hitler broke many of his treaties above, Hitler was the ally of Stalin, making Stalin his willing accomplice. Stalin was of course busy breaking his treaties with almost all of its European neighbours at the same time. Also given that in many places Stalin's reign was worse or even much worse than Hitler's and in other places Hitler's reign was worse or much worse, your point escapes me.

                BTW we had experience with dealing Russia and especially Soviet Russia before (look at our victorious war of liberation). I completely admit that our politicians were complete fools for not learning from our own experiences in the past and not doing what the Finns did a few months later. The cost of war could not have been worse than the cost of appeasment.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Andrey
                  Yes, Stalin made strategical mistake. But the Finns had possibility to not do the mistake which they did. In 1941-44 USSR was not threat to the Finns.
                  TBH I think that had the Finns not attacked the Soviets when they had the chance, the Soviets would have done exactly what they did in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. So the Finns were wise in studying our mistakes and avoiding this pitfall.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Stalin must have thought the price he would have to pay for this in the blood of the Red Army is too high for the benefit. This is the logic all small countries live by in preparing their defence.
                    As pp said, this is true, and this is what I've been aiming at.
                    I never have said that Finland could have stopped the Red Army from invading, it was just that we fought to the end so that the price for conquest became to much for the politicians to handle.
                    Had we not fought at all or in-effectively, I really don't think that Stalin would have stopped the advance against Finland.

                    But the Finns had possibility to not do the mistake which they did. In 1941-44 USSR was not threat to the Finns.
                    Andrey, do you really expect us to believe that USSR would not have attacked Finland once it was regaining territory and bringing the war on German soil?
                    The threat of a artillery attack on Leningrad was still present, so what makes you think that the security of Leningrad that you've pointed out would have meant less to the Russians?

                    Wasn't it too dangerous to help to Hitler so well?
                    When you have to choose between to evils, you go for the one that has not attempted to invade your country. So if Finland had to choose a world without Stalin or without Hitler, it would defenately be without Stalin - the Wehrmacht could have attacked Finland yes, but why would they have done so?

                    And regarding the treaties Hitler broke, he never broke them with us. He even held on to the Narva-front which tied up a great number of Soviet divisions to Estonia instead of those troops being free to join in on the attack against Finland, a fact that has a really big meaning when you consider the outcome of 1944 battles in Finland.

                    Hitler broke a lot of treaties and agreements.
                    He invaded in neutral Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway.
                    Which many treaties did Stalin break?
                    I was referring to treaties made to Finland.
                    And since we speak of neutral countries, was Finland not neutral?
                    Stalin broke atleast the non-aggression pacts with Finland - but of course because "we" fired the cannons against Mainila.

                    The Germans didn't broke Maginot Line, they outflanked it from the north through Belgium and Ardennes!!!
                    Yes, so they did. But they also attacked the Line itself once it was weakened by the sending of French soldiers elsewhere, opening another flank of the devasteted French Army.

                    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.
                    And this differs how of the Stalin's plans to move the whole of the Finnish population elsewhere and replace them with Russians?
                    This plan, might I ad, was found amongst the archives when the USSR collapsed.

                    "The fools study in own mistakes, the clever people study on other mistakes."
                    Yes, we saw what was happening south of the border, with the Baltic countries. We really did not wish to join the USSR, and would never have been "quite happy to join the USSR" as you said about the Baltic countries.
                    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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by pp(est)
                      TBH I think that had the Finns not attacked the Soviets when they had the chance, the Soviets would have done exactly what they did in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. So the Finns were wise in studying our mistakes and avoiding this pitfall.
                      It is only your paranoia.

                      It is paranoia that USSR could attack Finland during the war against Germany (it meant to increase the amount of enemies).

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I think THIS! qualifies as a good description of Andrey's posting style..

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          It is paranoia that USSR could attack Finland during the war against Germany (it meant to increase the amount of enemies).
                          Try reading my post through again, I said in 1944 when the tide of the war in Russia had turned!
                          I never said that Russia would have attacked us when Germany was pushing the Red Army back on all fronts.

                          It is only your paranoia.
                          And Finland firing against Leningrad with artillery is your paranoia. Why not declare war on us again, we have now missiles that can reach Leningrad and beyond. Surely you must see that if we can we will use them, as we have always did.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Veritas
                            As pp said, this is true, and this is what I've been aiming at.
                            I never have said that Finland could have stopped the Red Army from invading, it was just that we fought to the end so that the price for conquest became to much for the politicians to handle.
                            Had we not fought at all or in-effectively, I really don't think that Stalin would have stopped the advance against Finland.
                            What had to be the price of the last movement? Why to break Mannerheim Line and to stop? Meretskov, the commander of Soviet 7th Army, writes in his memoirs that "when our troops entered in Vyborg the road to Helsinki was practically opened to us". If USSR wanted to capture whole Finland it could do it if to speak only about military efforts.

                            Politicians decided that it is not so good to continue the war. Stalin didn't want to fight with Britain...

                            Andrey, do you really expect us to believe that USSR would not have attacked Finland once it was regaining territory and bringing the war on German soil?
                            In 1941-44 for USSR:
                            Why to attack Finland if it is necessary to finish the war against Germany firstly?
                            Why to begin a war against Finland if your Ally is Britain which is pro-Finnish? Do you understand the possible consequences of such attack for Stalin?

                            It was the same like if USSR suddenly attacked Turkey in summer of 1942.

                            It is only Finnish paranoia.

                            The threat of a artillery attack on Leningrad was still present, so what makes you think that the security of Leningrad that you've pointed out would have meant less to the Russians?
                            In 1940, after Winter War the border was moved from Leningrad, don't you remember it?

                            When you have to choose between to evils, you go for the one that has not attempted to invade your country. So if Finland had to choose a world without Stalin or without Hitler, it would defenately be without Stalin -
                            After WWII Stalin didn't disappear but Finland leved normally. It is again your paranoia.

                            the Wehrmacht could have attacked Finland yes, but why would they have done so?
                            Because Hitler wanted to become at least master of Europe.

                            And regarding the treaties Hitler broke, he never broke them with us.
                            Hitler showed not once that it was good idea to trust him. But you do not want to see it. If he neede he easy broke any treaty with Finland.

                            He even held on to the Narva-front which tied up a great number of Soviet divisions to Estonia instead of those troops being free to join in on the attack against Finland, a fact that has a really big meaning when you consider the outcome of 1944 battles in Finland.
                            He didn't think about Finland even for a moment, don't show him as a noble knight. If he did what he did he supposed that it iwas good for him.

                            I was referring to treaties made to Finland.
                            And since we speak of neutral countries, was Finland not neutral?
                            Stalin broke atleast the non-aggression pacts with Finland - but of course because "we" fired the cannons against Mainila.
                            But why didn't you look on Hitler? You compare Stalin and Hitler but do not try to analize Hitler's behavior. Hitler broke practically al treaties and agreements which he had.

                            Yes, so they did. But they also attacked the Line itself once it was weakened by the sending of French soldiers elsewhere, opening another flank of the devasteted French Army.
                            What do you mean? The Germans didn't attack Maginot Line and it is well known fact. If a small German unit like a company attacked it somewhere so what?

                            And this differs how of the Stalin's plans to move the whole of the Finnish population elsewhere and replace them with Russians?
                            This plan, might I ad, was found amongst the archives when the USSR collapsed.
                            I didn't hear about such plans. And in Baltic States the native nations didn't disappear for 50 years in USSR.

                            Yes, we saw what was happening south of the border, with the Baltic countries. We really did not wish to join the USSR, and would never have been "quite happy to join the USSR" as you said about the Baltic countries.
                            It is again your strange paranoia. Look more on Hitler's action. He was more dangerous for the Finns.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              If Stalin saw fit to try and grab Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland (failing in the last attempt) in 1939, I think it is only reasonable to assume that given a chance it would have tried the same in 1944.

                              The Leningrad guns theory is simply BS. There were no guns and there were absolutely no reason why Finland would have wanted to have guns there. It is exactly as bogus as the reason for the "necessity" of occupying Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and half of Poland. There was no necessity. In fact Stalin weakened his defensive position by grabbing the land. But then again Stalin was never about defensive but about offensive. He would have attempted this regardless of whether there was Hitler or not. Unlike Hitler who desperately needed an alliance with Stalin to avoid the two front war, Stalin did not actually need an alliance with Hitler.

                              I didn't hear about such plans. And in Baltic States the native nations didn't disappear for 50 years in USSR.
                              It is a small miracle we didn't. If the colonisation and russification campaigns would have continued on the level they were in 1980s, we would not have lasted more than three or four generations.
                              Last edited by pp(est); 02 Jun 05, 08:37.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Veritas
                                And Finland firing against Leningrad with artillery is your paranoia.
                                Nobody believed in firing against Leningrad, it was only "cause".

                                Why not declare war on us again, we have now missiles that can reach Leningrad and beyond. Surely you must see that if we can we will use them, as we have always did.
                                Let try do it. Our ancestors beated you twice in past and we can repeat it again.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X