A very interesting link indeed, I knew about the Scandinavian volunteers, but did not know Polish volunteers helped the Finns in 1918. I believe it is essential for people to know about the Independence War to understand the 1939-40 conflict.

__________________

Thanks I love your sources! *bookmarks under WW2 category*

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

Kai , you may find this interesting. I just learnt there were French volunteers to help Finland, the story is almost forgotten because most of these volunteers were kia Belgium and France in may 1940. During the phoney war, the airmen from 1/54 and 2/54 assault squadrons were bored. They heard some echos about war in Finland and wanted to help, so when one of their officers asked them if there were men who wanted to go to Finland, they all volunteered. Arrangements were made in March 1940 with England and they were allowed to station at Tangmere until Norway and Sweden would allow their Squadron to cross their territories. They waited for more than a week and unfortunately by the time they were allowed to fly to Finland a cease fire was signed. They returned to France. A few weeks later, on May 12th they flew to Belgium witht their brand new Brequets 693, but they were totally outnumbered and massacred by flak and fighters. Almost all these brave men were lost within minutes on the Belgium front. Their leader, Sous Lt Delattre was hit above the target, he nevertheless bombed the target, then emptied his guns by straffing Germans collums and when he realised there was nothing else he could do than crash, he deliberately crashed on the collumn causing a huge explosion. That day only two crews returned to their base. There was still hope, but after having waited for many hours, only one phone call arrived from Bapaume (British base in France) where a third aircraft had belly landed with a deadly wounded navigator and a deaf pilot. All the others were either KIA, MIA or POW .

__________________

That could have been an interesting "what if " story later in the war. The Free French Pilots who went to Russia to fight the Germans and the French pilots who went to Finland to fight the Russians.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Thanx Skipper for your posting.

Very interesting story. Sad to hear they faced such an end, such brave men!

__________________

Many crews died, but that was to be expected. The french had a defensive strategy so what what could 60 of these assault aircrafts do against the Blitzkrieg? Besides the Brequet 693 was a modified version of the 691 which took many months to adapt. The 691 had engine and landing gear problemes, so by yhe time the 693 was ready it was too late to convince the government to built these planes on a large scale. Had they been faster, it would have been possible to send these assault aircrafts to the Finnish front.

__________________

Churchill definitely was on our side in Winter War and after that but the British foreign policy...well, I would not really say so...

"Compared to the early spring, during the summer of 1940, Finland wasn't high in importance in British foreign policy. To gain support from the Soviet Union, Britain had appointed Sir Stafford Cripps, from the left wing of the Labour Party, ambassador to Moscow. He had openly supported the Terijoki Government during the Winter War and he wondered to Ambassador Paasikivi 'didn't the Finns really want to follow Baltic Republics and join the Soviet Union?'. He also dismissively called President Kallio "Kulak" and Nordic social democracy "reactionary". The British Foreign Office had to apologize for his language to Ambassador Gripenberg."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Peace

__________________

If I understand your question here, I believe that Finland did have to stand up to Stalin, yes.

Stalin, like Hitler, was bent on expansion. If Finland had given in, Stalin might have taken that as a sign of weakness, either way, I think Stalin was determined to expand to the detriment of his weaker neighbours eventually anyways.

Sadly when he did, America and the West didn't care. Though I believe Churchill wanted to ally with Finland and rush to her aid against 'the big bully' even if it meant going through neutral Sweden to do it(that doesn't sound too bright), but in the end, no-one did.

Ok, that's not totally true. I've been told that with a common enemy, the Finns and Japanese were relating to eachother.

Like when the US invaded Canada unsuccessfully 5 times in the War of 1812(though not in my American history book shockingly enough), the vastly outnumbered gave the invader a bloody nose.

This unbelievably fantastic effort by the vastly outnumbered, under-armed(weapons from almost every major power) not only convinced Stalin his army needed over-hauling, but, and many may not know this, was also one of the reasons Hitler felt confident enough to go ahead with his own plans, alot of his fears of Russia diminished by Finnish success.

Definately, eventhough no-one else came to her defense as the Allies did for Poland, Finland couldn't just roll over and keep giving in. Each time she did, that would be like letting the opposing side in a chess match start a new game with some pieces already placed closer.

After the first time, did Finland try to make a defense pact with anyone like Poland did?

What facts do you have to support this statement?

__________________
Bah!

Balderdasher,

After reading your post it sounds to me as if you believe that Stalin's intension's were to conquer all of Finland, am I mistaken here?

If that is the case, what you would say to those who believe that Stalin did not want to conquer all of Finland but only wanted to create a larger "buffer" zone to Russia's second largest city Leningrad, which was at the time only 40 miles away from the Finnish border?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Bessarabia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Eastern Poland, puppet state in Mongolia, 2 border skirmishes with Manchurians and Japanese.

There was an article I saw by a L Miller of Miller Systems WW2 Campaign article 'Stalin's Secret' where he mentioned a Russian author as well indicating that Stalin's military build-up, including an offensive navy of super-battleships and the world's largest submarine fleet and offensive, not defensive, deployment of forces along Eastern European borders even before they were German allies. I don't remember the Russian historian's name, there may be 2 even. Maybe just rumor of a Russian author using quotes from Russian generals estimating a timetable of 'action' planned later the same summer of Operation Barbarossa. That article points out that the Russian deployment was totally wrong for the Soviet defense in depth philosophy and that's why the German attack did so much better than even the Germans thought it should, surprise included.

Ok, I didn't think I was allowed to paste his entire article here?
but I found the Russian historian he mentions and agrees with.

I am finally backed up by Russian historian Viktor Suvorov making the same claim and providing evidence that Stalin was planning to invade July 10th, 1941.

I believe Miller's sources include Macksey and a Hughes-Wilson? though not sure. Seems to make alot of parallel arguments with some interesting notable differences. Miller's is on general strategic and production decisions while the real book published historians use actual Soviet evidence it seems.
I've never bothered to buy their books though, sorry. Still agree with their reasoning.

Anytime you are willing to war on a neighbour just because they refuse to give up territory and bases to you shows expansionist mind. The Japanese and Germans and Italians used the same 'reasoning'.

I believe there was also communist manifesto? or something regarding the duty to spread the People's Revolution around the world, by force if need be?
Were there also not Soviet claims that the Czar had no right to give up 'Russian territory' which at one time also included Finland?

If Stalin were sincerely defensive minded, then I'd expect him to have accepted rather than rejected the Allies mutual defense pact and Polish guarantee offers rather than instead sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact which literally abolished all such 'buffer zones' you cite. I wish the Miller Stalin article were up on their website.

Let Hitler go to war with the Allies himself rather than risk them declaring war on you for doing no less to Poland than Germany was.

No, I don't buy Stalin's 'defense mind' at all.

As far as I can tell, Finland was pushed into allying with Germany only after Russian aggression, not before. And might have allied with the Allies instead if they'd given Finland the attention and support it deserved.
But you'd have to ask the Finns about that maybe..

You might as well say that American invasion of Canada was only to create a greater buffer from British threat or later Russian threat.
We wouldn't buy it.
I have a Polish friend who doesn't buy that Stalin invaded Poland as a buffer from Hitler either. In fact he's always blaming us for not declaring war on Russia for the same thing Germany did in Poland.

I've often wondered the same thing. But I guess you can't have three-way war and since Germany made the first move on Poland...

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

After and during Winter War Finland tried to make contact with the Nordic countries, but as Stalin/USSR considered this more or less an act of war this was put aside. Finland had been in good relations with Germany for long ( since WW1 ), but as the Finns did not react towards nazism the way Hitler wanted we were not so "hot in Hitler´s list ". And especially after Aug 1939 deal in which Finland was given to Stalin as to do what he pleases with it, the contact with Germany was broken totally. Only as Hitler had decided to go for Barbarossa, Hitler started very close negotiations with Finland, and also in Dec 1940 forbid the uSSR from attacking Finland which Molotov was asking to do.

Our president was towards the west just like Mannerheim, and there was a great deal of messages sent between Churchill and Mannerheim ( very friendly often ) until 6th Dec 1941 when Churchill saw no other option than to declare war on Finland. So an option lost by the west in Finland but I consider that it was necessary to sacrifice Finland in order to get the USSR help against nazi Germany. If that was not the reason, then I´d call that very foolish policy but little countries often mean nothing in the "big games".

__________________

Suvorov? If you weren't talking seriously I'd say you were joking! He is not a historian, he was a Red Army captain (real name Vladimir Rezun) who defected to the West in the Cold War and spilled the beans to the CIA and later got himself rich writing a few books stating how bad the Russians were. Completely discredited in this forum and elsewhere. More here
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...208&Itemid=108
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)
http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/...81001.gen.html

If Suvorov / Rezun is the basis for the rest of your post I'll decline responding.

__________________
Bah!

Balderdasher,

I must agree with Za here. Vladimir Rezun, was a traitor to his country, surely this individual cant be your only source can it?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I think it's less important that he's considered a traitor than the fact that other credible historians deem his theories without merit.

Although I don't agree with Rezun, It seems he was taken seriously at least for a while. I recall seeing a documentary many years ago about how Stalin was planning a pre-emptive strike against Germany and Western Europe. It was of course based on Rezun's theory and frankly not all that credible. I think the idea is a very interesting What It? scenario, but beyond that I haven't seen any evidence to support it.

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

David Glantz shreds him to little bits in "Stumbling Colossus", should be an interesting read. http://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colo.../dp/0700608796

If he's a traitor or not is no argument. What matters is whether his work is any good or not. By the way, my first link above points to the Russian version of the text, here is the English version of this long and interesting critique http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...208&Itemid=108

__________________
Bah!

Personally as a Canadian I don't care much if Stalin was planning to invade Europe before Barbarossa or not.

I can see that more Russians or communists would most likely be found amongst Suvorov's critics just like Americans to Benedict Arnold. That doesn't mean I believe everything Suvorov wrote is false anymore than Arnold's.

I can also see that more Poles and Baltic State people would be found amongst the supporters of the suggestion.

Personally reading all this, I'm more likely to go along with Miller, Macksey, Wilson and others wondering if Stalin had postponed plans to take advantage of an Axis-Allied wear-down war till 1942 even 43 instead of this guys' 1941 claim. But it's obvious he has more support than you implied too, and from some critical quarters who are known to be critical of all sides fairly equally. So that makes an impression on me and hopefully readers here compared to your apparent pre-disposed views on things. IMHO, I won't infer insults on you, I pretty much assume I don't know everything and others know more about their own nation than I do.

Hell, I disbelieve Miller's claim that Stalin had a spy in Bletchley Park.

As I said, I've never read that Russian's work at work myself.
I found this link trying to explain both sides with obvious more neutrality than you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

My apologies to Miller though. I've found the entire paper and see that by quoting just one line it's mis-representing the over-all message. But even he says 'you can't throw out the baby with the bath-water'.

P47 "Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-ups"...Colonel John Hughes-Wilson
'According to Churchill, the Soviet leader later claimed ruefully, "I thought I could gain another six months or so", and there is plenty to suggest that Stalin's aim was to delay war until the Soviet Union was prepared for one, perhaps in 1942.'

P49 "Military Errors of World War Two" Kenneth Macksey indicates evidence since 1985 that there may in fact be more merit than first thought to the Suvorov's claims "and that one reason hwy the forces on Russia's western frontier in June were caught unprepared was because they were poised for attack, not defence."

Now those 2 are whom I would call fair to criticising both sides, while you seem obviously one-sided on issues from what I can read of your posts on the forums here.

You can call all these other authors and sources quacks like Suvorov(sorry if spelling name wrong), but I agree with the following concerns.

Stalin's production plan and type of weapons, including the largest offensive bombing fleet in the world.
The largest build up of submarines in the world(even after it was clear both Germany and Japan were merchant strangled).

Now I'm not sure about this, but did Stalin order the dismantling of a line of defensive fortifications running all the way from the Black Sea through the Ukraine up to the Baltic? and weren't those weapons moved forward towards the Western Front, not eastward as would be an appeasing move? IIRC.

So if it comes to my believing authors I know are published as being fairly equally critical of all sides,
as compared to believing you who I see predictably come down posting a particular line of thinking,
I'll take the more impartial group thanks,
regardless of your air of superiority and claims of only your authors are reliable.

For those interested in both critical sides of the issue, that link tries to show both, unlike the critics here who obviously show you only one side.

Back to the question.
"In other words, would it have been better for Finland in the long run to have agreed to the exchange of territory or was there definitely no alternative to fighting?"

My answer remains no.
No matter how you try to sugar-coat it, when one nation demands territory from another it is showing an aggressive nature.

It's like whipping your neighbours to make them like you better than your enemy.
Isn't that what drove people against Hitler?
Isn't that what drove those 'buffers' into the Reich?
Doesn't it only put more of your units in direct contact with the enemy units than ever before?

I'd see it if the Germans were doing it first, bullying the Finns into Luftwaffe and Uboat bases closer to Soviet strategic targets.
I'd even see it if the Allies were making similar inroads threatening the Soviet Union around her borders...after all, they did invade Russia on behalf of the White Russian? anti-bolsheviks? into the 1920s IIRC.

But at this point? no, I don't see it as anything but initiative of Soviet aggression over anyone else's.
As far as I know, Finland had no favourable predisposition to the Nazis or even Germany at this point?

btw
whenever someone dictates absolutes in forums supposedly welcoming different perspectives...
"Completely discredited in this forum and elsewhere." Za Rodinu
to most democratically minded readers, that smacks of someone claiming to speak for all others
which helps those not willing to just let you tell them what they must think
form opinions on your opinions as well I'd think?