Soviet Manchuria offensive.

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

I can largely agree with this, though I doubt that had the US issued a DoW on Finland that any change would have occurred in Finland's eventual fate considering what happened to Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics and East Germany. The west as a whole was not interested or willing to push Stalin on this matter since following it though would likely (in their minds at least) led to a new war.

 

Again, I largely agree with this.

That with each country that fought against Anglo-American-Soviet forces, they did so for their own reasons, some better than others. Romania's situation most closely mirrored that of Finland, as they too were forced to cede border territory to the Soviet Union, feared further depredations and wished to recover lost border provinces.

Of all Germany's allies (or Co-belligerent's, if you prefer) Finland's war-time actions were the most honorable, and her motivations, the most understandable.

But, in joining Germany directly, Finland (and many other 'Axis' counties) acted akin to a innocent person whose home was broken into and valuables has been stolen and then turns to the neighborhood Ax-Murderer/Rapist to help him get it back again. Understandable, perhaps, but it leaves them tarnished in some small degree for the actions taken by their erstwhile protector.

There was nothing noble in Nazi Germany's intentions, and very little in their actions.

 

Here I must disagree with you to a greater degree.

I question that a Soviet attack in the spring of 1941 was "common knowledge", but rather a common preconception, and yes there is a difference between the two. Had not by June 22nd the spring already passed without any Soviet attack?

While it might be claimed that the 40,000 German troops present "prevented" said attack, how could they effectively aid Finland with them posted in the Northern third of the country? If Russia had no idea where German troops were posted, then how could Russia be faulted for attacking Finnish targets rather than German ones (in Finland) after June 22nd? Why did the Soviet Union need to wait until the Spring of 1941 to renew an attack upon Finland? What was wrong with the Summer of 1940? Or another Winter War in 1940/41?

Earlier I posited that the Soviet disposition's created a common preconception rather than common knowledge of an impending Soviet offensive. There has been much recent debate by some that Russia's deployments pre Operation Barbarossa foretold an impending Soviet attack on Germany scant weeks after June 22nd, 1941. I feel the evidence proves otherwise.

Further the Soviet Union postwar had pretty much the same forward deployment philosophy along all her borders, and those of her client states. The same preconception of a massive Soviet army rolling east at an hour's notice floated though the capitol's of western Europe from 1946 till the early 1980's, yet they never did.

South Korea has lived under the same preconception about North Korea since 1954 till today. So too has Taiwan have much the same outlook about the PRC. I think rather that Communist countries have both a paranoia about border security and a fetish about saber rattling and intimidation against their neighbors.

Again I feel I must point out that with Germany near collapse and little Finland could do to stop them, Stalin again (as after the Winter war) settled for considerably less than an unconditional surrender from Finland. This seems extremely odd from a country so determined to see the subjugation of Finland. Stalin did send about a million troops east (from central Europe to Siberia) to attack Japan in 1945, yet somehow they could not spare a hundred thousand or so finish off troublesome Finland?

I am curious, did Finland ever build the the railroad Stalin demanded? If so, why no Invasion?

 

Think you are right.

 

And I also largely agree with this too.

For me personally it doesn't make any difference, but since the word "co-bellingerent" describes the reality best I would use it.

I understand your example, except the "burgler" - living next door(!) - did not only take "my" valuables but murdered my brother and took tenth of my little farm. I also know, that this "burgler" is also a triple ax-murderer/rapist and is getting ready to rob the rest of my farm, to kill some more relatives of mine (or myself) and to enslave the ones not killed. In that kind of desperate situation I don't have the luxury of asking my only possible protector (I'm only a small guy...) about his background.

No, that kind of situation did not leave Finland tarnished no more, than it tarnished Winston Churchill or the UK - or indeed the USA . As I wrote before Finland had only two choices: either to recieve help from Germany or to be destroyed. Which option would you have chosen...?

 

Belasar: I'll return to your questions later...

 

Romania also faced the treat of Germany...

Ahh, please. We not are not in a moralist lecture here. The US and Britain also had a blind eye for much of the Nazi attrocities after Western Germany was formed, as well as for Franco's dictatorhip. Both due to the Cold War. Talking like that, it seems that Finland was the only country that did this kind of thing. It always occured and always will occur.

Subjective. For the Nazis, what they were doing was "noble".

 

Actually I don't believe it was in effect when the Soviets attacked. I'm pretty sure they renounced the nonagression pact and then declared war before they attacked. Indeed here is the declaration of war text:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/s4.asp

As for the neutrality pact:
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/jap/sov/w2j-sdw.html
states

So the Soviets appear to have lived up to the letter of the law in this case.

 

Jenisch,

My comment about morality is in response to the statement made that the Soviet Union was "Evil". If we make moral judgements about one player, we must also consider them for all. Please read my post more closely as I state that all of Hitler's co-belligerents made similar Devil's bargain's with Germany, and each had their own reasons for doing so.

Of all of them I have the greatest respect and deepest compassion for Finland.

They never bought into the race war component of Hitler's dream's and I can find no indication of any war atrocities on their part, this greatly separates them from the pack.

 

Hitler's treatment of the Slavs was inspired a lot by the US conquest of the Indians

 

Hello,that is the first time I've heard that Steve.thanks,4th.

 

I'm not so sure. It may be that Stalin would have considered such a declaration of war as giving him a free hand. On the other hand I suspect even Stalin respected the Finns by that point. The fact that they halted thier offensive once it had recovered their traditional territory certainly didn't hurt either. Not to mention that they were willing to come to an agreement once the writing was clearly on the wall and they were given a chance. I suspect at the very least they would have been ended up closer to the Soviets. How much closer is a difficult question to answer though.

 

That showed Moscow the Finns were not "adventurous". But it puzzles me why the USSR didn't overrun Finland. The armistice terms were rarsh as for the size of the Finish military, and the Soviets would overrun Finland easily if they want. Even so, I still don't quiet understand why the Russians didn't occupied Finland. It could have been due to fear that with a German defeat in sight, Sweeden would take a more agressive position and fight with Finland, which already proved a tought opponent?

 

Stalin knew France and Britain were thinking of intervention, Stalin was taking a major hit in the world PR and Stalin knew he would face a major fight to pacify Finland. Stalin got what he wanted and knew to cut his losses.

 

Steve, but this was in 1939. I'm talking about 1945.

 

its related though, there was nothing to gain by occupying Finland, Stalin was having enough issues with the Polish problem and it would still take more time and men then was worth the gain.

 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Russia wanted border adjustments yes, and compliant neighbors yes, but not the conquest's that Nazi Germany did. In both 1939 and 1945 they had what they wanted and so stopped.

 

Hmm.

Plus I think that Sweeden would not like form the idea.