Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Siege of Leningrad and Finland

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Siege of Leningrad and Finland

    How Finnish participation on siege of Leningrad is and has been viewed in Russian/Soviet teaching of history / public opinion?
    Life is too serious to be taken seriously.

  • #2
    its to bad Finland did not sustain its success against the Soviets

    Originally posted by teak View Post
    How Finnish participation on siege of Leningrad is and has been viewed in Russian/Soviet teaching of history / public opinion?
    Even with their eventual win, Stalin made a major purge of his army, what would he have done if they had lost?
    "America has gone to hell since John Wayne died". - Al Bundy

    "One finger is all any real American needs"

    "A gesture is worth a thousand words - but you usually only need two"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mojolocobell99 View Post
      Even with their eventual win, Stalin made a major purge of his army, what would he have done if they had lost?
      Not have much of an army at all, he would most likely purge the entire thing in his blind rage after hearing news of defeat.
      “Come and take it!"

      Comment


      • #4
        The official Finnish story is that our leadership didn't want the city to fall. If we would have made the city to fall Stalin would not have forgiven it to Finland if he would have won even after that and it would not have mattered if Germany was to win...
        It is said that Mannerheim was sure that Germany was to loose after it was seen that they couldn't capture Moscow...
        Life is too serious to be taken seriously.

        Comment


        • #5
          In Russia the relation to the Finns is not the same as to the Germans.

          It is considered that the Finns didn't try hard to capture Leningrad. It is considered that the Finns had limited war against the USSR and not the total "destruction" war liker Germany.

          It is considered that it was our own blame that in 1939 we attacked Finland so they later attacked the USSR.

          Comment


          • #6
            Stalin made a major purge of his army, what would he have done if they had lost?
            Tukhachevski's purge? But it was in 1937, long before the war. I cant remember any purges after WW2.

            Finns didn't try hard to capture Leningrad. It is considered that the Finns had limited war against the USSR and not the total "destruction" war
            Nope. They tryed, but failed. Karelsky UkrepRaion stopped them.
            And about "good" finns - they planned to annex after german victory Kola pen. and Karelia. Majority of slavic population was placed in conz. camps. Whaddaya think would be happened with them, if Hitler winned?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Xander View Post
              Nope. They tryed, but failed. Karelsky UkrepRaion stopped them.
              And about "good" finns - they planned to annex after german victory Kola pen. and Karelia. Majority of slavic population was placed in conz. camps. Whaddaya think would be happened with them, if Hitler winned?
              We Russians don't think in a black-white manner.

              In different situations our answer will be other.

              1. If the question is "What you think about Finns in WWII" so my answer is correct.

              Here it is.

              In Russia the relation to the Finns is not the same as to the Germans.

              It is considered that the Finns didn't try hard to capture Leningrad. It is considered that the Finns had limited war against the USSR and not the total "destruction" war liker Germany.

              It is considered that it was our own blame that in 1939 we attacked Finland so they later attacked the USSR.
              It is spoken as an answer on a neutral question.

              2. If the question is "Hey, Finland refused to give to the USSR a small part of their land, provoked the USSR to attack them and later joined to Germany to eliminate the USSR and Soviet people, didn't they?" so my answer is the following.

              It is wrong. The USSR attacked Finland in 1939, the Finns were not so cruel as Germans, their actions were limited, they didn't try to murder all the Russians.

              3. If the question is "Hey, Finland lived in peace, it was attacked in 1939 by evil Stalin, who tried to capture Finland and to turn it into a Soviet republic. Then Finns again lived in peace till 1941 before Soviets made a sudden airstrike so Finland was forced to enter the war. Later the Finns tried to take minimal part in the war, they didn't want to do sufferings to the Soviets and didn't attack Leningrad, didn't they?" so my answer is the following.

              In 1939 Stalin wanted only to move the border from Leningrad on a few dozens kilometers further.

              Later Finland had a military agreement with Germany and it was plannedthat Finland would attack the USSR a few days after the beginning of the German invasion.

              By June, 1941 it had been clear that Finland would attack the USSR soon.

              And it was not a good will of Finnish rulers that they didn't capture Leningrad and didn't connect with the Germans to east from the Ladoga Lake. It was Red Army who didn't let them to do it.


              SO, REMEMBER ABOUT IT!

              The Russian opinion about the Finns in WWII is a very complicated thing. It is very difficult to say it in a couple of words.
              Last edited by Andrey; 14 Apr 09, 03:28.

              Comment


              • #8
                The USSR attacked Finland in 1939, the Finns were not so cruel as Germans, their actions were limited, they didn't try to murder all the Russians.
                Dude, if there was no Winter war, finns surely would backstab city defenders, when german troops get close. "Greater Finland" project, remember?
                So, the Soviet-Finnish war was 100% justified, preemptive strike against the future agressor.

                It was Red Army who didn't let them to do it.
                Last edited by Xander; 14 Apr 09, 03:33.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by teak View Post
                  The official Finnish story is that our leadership didn't want the city to fall. If we would have made the city to fall Stalin would not have forgiven it to Finland if he would have won even after that and it would not have mattered if Germany was to win...
                  It is not correct enough.

                  As I know Red Army repelled the initial Finnish attack on the city and the Finnish offensive to south from the Svir River.

                  The Finns could try to continue those actions with more powerful efforts but they didn't. Why? - I think there were many reasons - including the scare of high casualties without any result.

                  As to the relation to the Finns so the story of the Finnish surrender in 1944 speaks itself about it.

                  The USSR didn't force Finland to change its state status (to turn it into as Communist country), it didn't sent occupation forces there, Finnish army was not dis-armed, Finnish leaders were not judged as military criminals.

                  Moreover, as I read Soviet and Finnish troops made a few small combine actions against German troops which were in Finland by the time of the surrender and which tried to breakthrough from Finland.

                  It is said that Mannerheim was sure that Germany was to loose after it was seen that they couldn't capture Moscow...
                  I don't know what Mannergeim thought in that time

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Xander View Post
                    Dude, if there was no Winter war, finns surely would backstab city defenders, when german troops get close. "Greater Finland" project, remember?
                    No, we don't think so.

                    It is wrong to think that without the Soviet attack in 1939 the Finns would attack the USSR in any case.

                    It is impossible to define how "Greater Finland" project was spreaded between Finns by 1939 and where or nor they ready to send their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands to die for it against so powerful enemy as the USSR.

                    Of course, the Soviet attack of 1939 turned many Finns into anti-Soviet biased people.

                    Some of those who were glad the beginning of the new war in 1941 didn't want to build Greater Finland but only to return their lands lost in 1939


                    So, the Soviet-Finnish war was 100% justified, preemptive strike against the future agressor.
                    No we don't think so.

                    It was Stalin's mistake.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                      In Russia the relation to the Finns is not the same as to the Germans.

                      It is considered that the Finns didn't try hard to capture Leningrad. It is considered that the Finns had limited war against the USSR and not the total "destruction" war liker Germany.

                      It is considered that it was our own blame that in 1939 we attacked Finland so they later attacked the USSR.
                      That's very interesting. That corresponds with the point of view expressed to me by Russians 25 years ago --- that Finland had acted to recover territory taken the year before, and refused to advance farther to appease the Germans. For that they were offered terms much more benevolent that would have been the case otherwise. The implication is that they were in the right, and Stalin was in the wrong. Romania surrendered a few weeks later, and was offered no such deal.

                      Cheers

                      Scott Fraser
                      Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                      A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Xander View Post
                        Dude, if there was no Winter war, finns surely would backstab city defenders, when german troops get close. "Greater Finland" project, remember?

                        So, the Soviet-Finnish war was 100% justified, preemptive strike against the future agressor.

                        That's a pretty silly notion.

                        Stalin wanted to put a naval base on Hanko. Finland refused. Stalin lost his temper. Men died.

                        I have no doubt there were many Finns who wanted Karelia back, but any notion of Finland invading the USSR and expecting to advance much beyond the environs of Leningrad is a fantasy. Poltava revisited.

                        Cheers
                        Scott Fraser
                        Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                        A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                          That's a pretty silly notion.

                          Stalin wanted to put a naval base on Hanko. Finland refused. Stalin lost his temper. Men died.
                          Your words are very strange.

                          Is the Hanko Naval Base the main official reason of the war? Is it written in Western books????

                          So, listen. And remember.

                          As I remember in 1939 the Soviet-Finnish border was in 30 km from Leningrad. Leningrad was within the fire range of field guns in Finnish territory.

                          Stalin offered to the Finns to move the border in the Karelian Peninsula further from Leningrad. Instead of this territory he offered twice more soviet territory in another place.

                          The Finns refused as that territory contained the Mannerheim Line and contained Finnish citizens.

                          It is the main official reason to the war.

                          Hanko Peninsula is in the entrance to the Finnish Gulf. The naval base in the Hanko Peninsula guarded Leningrad from sea threat.

                          So the Soviet reasons of the war of 1939-40 were to provide more defence to Leningrad.

                          It was not like tyrant Stalin suddenly wanted to get Hanko naval base (like a child wants to get a toy) and began the war for this.

                          I have no doubt there were many Finns who wanted Karelia back, but any notion of Finland invading the USSR and expecting to advance much beyond the environs of Leningrad is a fantasy. Poltava revisited.
                          Its not a fantasy. There was some possibility that Finland would join Germany in its war against the USSR if there was no Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-40.

                          It is wrong to declare it is a pure fantasy.

                          But it is also wrong to declare that Finland would join to Axis invasion if there was no Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-40.

                          Both opinions are fantisies. The reality is that Stalin's decision to attack Finland in 1939 pushed Finland towards Germany. It is a fact.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                            That's very interesting. That corresponds with the point of view expressed to me by Russians 25 years ago --- that Finland had acted to recover territory taken the year before, and refused to advance farther to appease the Germans. For that they were offered terms much more benevolent that would have been the case otherwise. The implication is that they were in the right, and Stalin was in the wrong. Romania surrendered a few weeks later, and was offered no such deal.
                            It is not correct enough.

                            In the first months of the war in 1941 Finland wanted more and even captured large territory with Petrozavodsk. That territory was not Finnish in 1939.

                            Finnish troops tried to attack Leningrad friom north and triedto advance to south fronm the Svir River. Both these actions were not related to the task to get back their lost territories.
                            The Finns were repelled by Red Army in both cases.

                            Also in 1941 Finns advanced (together with Germans) in a few other directions in the Kolsky Peninsula with the task to cut the railroad to Murmansk and then to capture the Peninsula. If they did it so Lend-Lease supply through Murmansk could be in trouble.

                            And again it was Red Army who stopped them.

                            After that the Finns didn't try to fight furiously to the last men. They were repelled and decided to stop anyt attempts to get more tan they had had by that moment.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                              Also in 1941 Finns advanced (together with Germans) in a few other directions in the Kolsky Peninsula with the task to cut the railroad to Murmansk and then to capture the Peninsula. If they did it so Lend-Lease supply through Murmansk could be in trouble.

                              And again it was Red Army who stopped them.
                              Actually the North was under German responsibility, in Finnish standards they couldn't archive a thing there... There were only minor Finnish units up there.
                              Life is too serious to be taken seriously.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X