Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Motti Tactics: How the Finns destroyed Soviet Divisions in the Winter War" video.

  1. Vietkong and North Vietnam were heavily backed up by industrialized nations. And 'dedicated local population' was not able to do anything to stop the advance of Soviet troops in 1940
    15
  2. Maybe you were born precisely because of Stalin's greed. Think about that. Think about old border
    8
  3. + Sakari Sikari >Soviet union wanted to rule Finland that's a Cold War bullshit, with no objective evidences
    6
  4. +Tero Känsäkangas strangely, same histories are attributed to German machine-gunners. I see a trend here
    6
  5. My two cents: 1) You're exaggerating the impact of cleansing in the officer corps. Quality the officer corps has fallen significantly due to the increasing the numbers of the Red Army 2) Carl Mannerheim served in the Russian Imperial Army, not in Red Army. So he was aware of the capabilities of of the Red Army as far as the Finnish intelligence knew about them
    6
  6. fern van you are drunk. Go home
    5
  7. +Beat The Great lol. Now I see, what they teach kids in the school in USA today. 20 millions. Why not 50 millions? Lenin's purges... triplefacepalm
    5
  8. MsTiK Finland was pretty mush occupied until 1918. And after - perhaps no one wanted to occupy Finland?
    4
  9. MsTiK >When one has to choose between Germans and Russians, the choice is very easy. You said it. These words fairly accurately characterize your morality.
    4
  10. Teemu >The intel of Soviets trying to take over Helsinki is openly taught in schools and military of Finland. This is not surprising. Until recently, the studies of the Winter War were significantly ideologized.
    4
  11. Dmitri Jikharev man. not again :D
    4
  12. +Recon Pirate in fact - not. He is a stupid creature, who is feed with stories of Stalin's greed and other anti-soviet myths
    4
  13. +Oskari M Yup. Exactly. It's not propaganda because you learned that. How could it be a propaganda? You are Finnish, after all. Who could fed a propaganda to the proud son of Finnish people?
    4
  14. +Tyler Christensen you are talking some major bullshit here. Mentioned ukrainian 44-th Division suffered most heavy losses during Battle of Raate Road. Are you implying that ukrainian soldiers killed themselves out of hate to russians?
    4
  15. >No. But essentially you said that troops of 44th killed themselves(by sitting in motti's) out hate to Russia. >How would you feel if you were forcibly drafted to fight for a country that invaded your own and then raped and murdered the peasant farmers? where did you get that shit from? Ukraine wasn't separate country before 1917. And Ukraine wasn't separate country after 1919 >Btw, do I pronounce your first name "Vacheeslav?" it's more like 'Viacheeslav'
    4
  16. Military History Visualized PPSh-41 has predecessors like PPD-40, PPD-34 and PPD-27 - russian submachineguns by Vasiliy Degtyarev. You can google the pictures and see similarities - drum magazine etc. Mechanically PPsh-41 has little common with KP-31.
    4
  17. + 6668084747 you talking bullshit. Finland was Hitler's ally. So no "unnecessary moves", they wanted the war - they got it
    4
  18. + Cwovictor Unless you are the Mongols.
    4
  19. cause soviets destroyed finnish divisions :D
    4
  20. Military History Visualized check out what happens if a company experiencing explosive growth. The Red Army was experiencing problems with the quality of the middle and lower command staff. >I can only imagine what happens if someone is faced with being killed almost constantly. You (and I) are the product of 60 years of peace, has not grown in the devastated country that survived civil war. It's difficult to understand the feelings of people who lived through this
    4
  21. +Military History Visualized >I think you clearly underestimate how much can be changed in 21 years, when it comes to training, doctrine, etc. I think, all was changed since WWI and Mannerheim service as cavalry commander. Emerged mechanized warfare, small unit tactics and such.
    4
  22. Robo Warrior remaining independent out of mercy is victory? OF COURCE! >enemy aims to occupy the entire country. Who says so?
    3
  23. Robo Warrior >You can't say its a defeat either. USSR reached their goals and some more, Finland - lost territory without any compensation and in a much larger amount than was proposed during negotiations in Moscow >The USSR could've never hold Finland for a long time. see Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Western Ukraine and so on. >That's what everyone says, both sides in fact. nope. Only some ignorant fools >Nobody is denying it except you. ROFL. Nobody? You asked everyone?
    3
  24. Robo Warrior >The ultimate military goal was to annex Finland entirely sources, please >The "negotiations" in Moscow were a trap all long. really? >The "Suojeluskunta" organization would've made occupation hell. or not >Ignorant fools say that the Soviets didn't aim to annex Finland entirely. See the war plans for yourself. of course you have said plains and can prove it. >Its a common fact that the Soviet Union miserably failed in the Winter War. you failed to prove it even to yourself :D
    3
  25. Robo Warrior >The formation of the "Terijoki" government and Soviet speeches of being in Helsinki inside two weeks of fighting kinda give away the whole plan. or they had to put pressure on the government of Finland >Yes the plan for Finnish annexation was made in July 1936, before the negotiations even began sources, pleace >Explain how the "Suojeluskunta" organization wouldn't have made the occupation hell? by failing miserably >Those plans are public information. could you be more specific about "those plans"? >How is losing over 320 000 men dead, missing and wounded not a miserably failure? how is losing large mass of territory, including the second largest city in the state could be  "glorious victory"?
    3
  26. Teemu >as scripted in Soviet letters and archives of the war times. paradoxically, russian historians don't know of such things
    3
  27. + Andrew Porter >Yet both Russia & China have used massed infantry as a weapon in & of itself. that's a bullshit. Soviet military relied heavily on the involvement of a large mass of armoured vehicles >It is mentioned in the documentary that at one point, some Finnish personnel were over come by the shock of the carnage they had been forced to inflict. yes, yes, "machineguns barrels melted". Another bullshit
    3
  28. sakor88 and pets. You forgot pets
    3
  29. Markku Hänninen btw, looks like you are okay with US stomping independent countries all around the world?
    3
  30. +LoggotyroX33 But... USSR have won...
    3
  31. +Big E oh, and there is Suur-Suomi, and Viipuri, Sortavala and Petsamo belongs to Finland ?
    3
  32. + redneck96100 Oh you!
    3
  33. MakeMeThinkAgain KP-31 was intended as a more cheap substitute for light machine gun. He is goddamn heavy (AFAIR, 7 kg loaded) and unwieldy. And it has a small range of effective fire.
    3
  34. 6668084747 >Finland attacked to take back what was taken like Soviet Karelia, yes >Finland and Germany simply had a common enemy USSR and Allies simply had common enemy - Hitler, and all those who helped him. Like Finland. So I do not understand the reasons for your whining. I bet, Finns were not surprised
    3
  35. 6668084747 >Finland was not an enemy of the Allies Finland were helping Hitler - so, enemy of the Allies >Mannerheim refused to help in the siege of Leningrad by taking part in said siege, yes. The Finns even had plans to use long-range artillery against Kronstadt >stopped advancing even though he could have kept going at that time. why he stopped there, where he met stubborn resistance of Soviet troops? Like in Soviet Karelia? It is far to the east of the old border
    3
  36. Isola SanServolo yup, that was te part of the action. Except there is no such thing as "little blitzkrieg"
    3
  37. They won what?
    2
  38. + Robo Warrior >Why form a puppet government for an entire nation if you plan to annex a few kilometers of land? cause that nation put up a serious fight? And USSR badly needed that kilometers? >Some good documentaries. Discovery History channel? Really? That's your source? How old are you? >Now tell my how the "Suojeluskunta" organization would fail miserably? How? MI-SE-RAB-LE. That's how. >By "those plans" I mean soviet initial offensive plans. Lol'd. That's military plans to destroy the military power of the Finland, not political. They had nothing to do with supposed "annexation". >1/10th of territory lost isn't bad Of course. The enemy bloodied his fists on your head - so you win. It's worth nothing that you have a broken head. And that, lady and gentleman, is a small nation pride :D
    2
  39. Robo Warrior >You don't form puppet governments to govern 10km though. as i said before, they had to put pressure on the government of Finland >The facts check out though. what facts, lol? Occupation of Finland? Oh, wait, that didn't happend... >And I like it how you ignored that I'd give more detailed proof when I had the time. of course you give the proof. Of course :D >You need to give me one good reason why they wouldn't wage effective guerrilla warfare.. no, YOU should give  good reasons why they would be effective guerrilas. You made the statement, you have to prove it, not the other way >Those plans aimed to capitulate the Finnish government and replace it with the communist puppet government i don't see anything about "replace finland government" on the picture you provided. Any sources? >when the enemy is 1000 times bigger than you I'd say that's an accomplishment if anything. Look at Vietnam story after WW2. THAT's you can call accomplishment
    2
  40. Robo Warrior >They created the government after the initial invasion though.. and? At first Stalin and Red Army high command did not took seriously Finnish armed forces >Because we didn't let them so, about what "facts" do you talking? >They advanced far beyond what was talked about in the "Moscow negotiations". yup. You want to move enemy border as far from your second largest city as possible. During the Moscow agreements, Finland was just a neighbor. >For now those documentaries have everything in them that check out. documentary is not a source. It's a narration, designed to entertain. >"Suojeluskunta" was a paramilitary organisation organized locally by every city, town and village in the entire country. that's just words. Any proofs of their guerilla deeds? >And like I said, the soviets wanted to advance into Helsinki. Not just take the land that was talked about in the supposed "negotiations" so, no sources, just your say-so? >Are you saying that when an army outnumbered ten to one manages to beat back the enemy time and time again is unimpressive?? you have to study the history of the Winter War more thorough. About "outnumbered ten to one" and such things :D
    2
  41. Robo Warrior >How would creating a meaningless puppet government put pressure to the Finnish government? By сonvincing them that Stalin means business? >we did not let the Soviets take more than they did. so, what about facts? "The facts check out though." - remember that? >so why not annex/puppet the entire country while at it? so why annex entire country? >Those documentaries are based off of information that checks out. or not. Like the stories of Stalin's wish to annex Finland, lol >Any proof that the soviets wouldn't have gotten destroyed by the "Suojeluskunta" organization? No? Why? Finland lost Winter War ;) Soviets weren't destroyed by Skyddskår :D >But how is a force that is armed and ready to fight till the death not a force to be reckoned with? easy. look at Iraqi armed and police forces. And how miserable they lost to the ISIS :D >As you can see from the map, the soviet plan included the advance on Helsinki. So. no sources then. Well, we came to the conclusion. Your words about the change of government - just your words. Good, >Compare the soviet army and manpower vs the Finnish army in size and come back. do you think that ALL Red Army attacked Finland? ROFL. You need to go back to school, then. How old are you, btw? >But you didn't answer my question, was Winter War not impressive? it was impressive. Red Army Command had lost some illusions and come to some conclusions.
    2
  42. Robo Warrior > yet you don't back it up with anything. You also did not backed up your words by anything ;) Except, promises to give a more detailed proof when you have time. Yet you had time to write all those thousands of letters ;) >and not make idiotic arguments like: "You talked with the spirit of Paasikivi" man, you made idiotic argument "Nobody took the Terijoki government seriously.". How'd you know that? You did not read ANYTHING serious about the Winter War. So your sources should be spirits of the dead, i guess. Or documentaries, lol >Goodbye, and I hope we won't meet again. So, no sources. And you probably 17-18 years old? ;)
    2
  43. Faustas Baltuška >.Then what about Baltic state's? what about them? >USSR was the empire of total evil bringing only misery to the land's it touched. bullshit >there is a good documentary about it, "Soviet Story". yup.The film, which is exposed as a total fake. а вот скажи мне, лабус - ты в парадах ветеранов СС участие принимаешь?
    2
  44. who claimed to kill over 500 Russians, to be correct
    2
  45. 1939 how is it possible - to verify a sniper claim? Someone crossed the frontline and checked?
    2
  46. Heart Fire one of the friends of the killed? Lol
    2
  47. nope. "Molotov coctails" were invented long before
    2
  48. +__ ___ nope. Are you?
    2
  49. MsTiK i kinda grew up near Finland border. And from what you have concluded that Stalin tried to occupy Finland?
    2
  50. MsTiK >t's much nicer to live in an independent and democratic country You choose Hitler over Stalin, remember?
    2
  51. Antti Kihlakaski because I see the modern Finland, which has received much benefit from the proximity to the USSR. And in the Soviet Union there was no state ideology of genocide
    2
  52. Dave Walker and 20%  of foreign trade. And cooperation in  forestry industries, mechanical engineering and shipbuilding. Like half of the USSR icebreaker fleet was built in Finland
    2
  53. Soviets were about same age, as finns.
    2
  54. it has nothing common with guerilla warfare, though
    2
  55. there is nothing similar to guerilla warfare in Finnish actions, except some of the ski troops raids. To achieve victory Finns created local numerical superiority, their units, that participated in the battles, where not less than battalion size, not speaking about the use of artillery.
    2
  56. and they acted as regular troops, using conventional warfare
    2
  57. difference is that it's not asymmetric/guerilla warfare. Finns used numerical superiority and engaged soviet troops in open field
    2
  58. Dmitri Jikharev This topic was raised several times here
    2
  59. +Niles and "democratic" finns created concentration camps for russians. You know nothing of history
    2
  60. Minäenkeksinimeä >First of all I said so to him because you clearly act like a Russian troll yup. You feel the need to support your soul mate. You were not confused with his views on the death of the "Bolshevik whores" >Secondly why should Finland accept those were OUR lands. because that's the way of small countries. Whether it's Finland or Puerto Rico. >Your last statement is like saying "WW2 could have been avoided by polish people giving danzig to germans." Nope. The Germans wanted a lot more than Danzig. USSR wanted to move the border from Leningrad and territory for military base. As it happened
    2
  61. Markku Hänninen >because Romania became satellite country but has lost Bessarabia to Soviet Union. Hmmmmm, something don't  fit in with the 'Evil Soviet Union, trying to conquer all the surrounding countries'
    2
  62. Markku Hänninen >But after Soviet Union had raised the society to industrial one, it was unable to move it forward from that the terms "industrial" and "post-industrial" are important under the capitalist system. The Soviet Union sought to build communism >oil provided injection of capital that kept soviet union artificially running for few decades. Soooooo. On what capital injections Soviet Union was running before  it began to export oil in large quantities?
    2
  63.  @freerbx793  > The prisoners in those camps were mostly POWs facepalm. No, the prisoners in those camps were ethnic russians that remained in Karelia >And far smaller in scale than say, Gulags or Japanese-American internment camps. Karelia had a far smaller quantity of ethnic russians. >I'm not denying that it was bad you are doing exactly that, when you talking about "that was better than Gulag"
    2
  64. +Jen'Ari-Asha >The Soviets were internationally humiliated by the war. by western propaganda - maybe. >Their casualties were undeniably completely out of proportion to the land they got. The main objective was to prevent the capture of Leningrad, in case the Finland will become a base for hostile forces. It happened. >Their humiliation in the Winter War is considered to be one of the chief reasons of why Hitler decided to attack them so early. by whom?
    2
  65. >the secret additional protocol stated that USSR wanted Finland, the Baltic states and part of Poland they were included in the USSR's "sphere of influence", no less, no more >USSR invaded all of those countries on the list but failed to invade Finland failed? Really? Are you implying that USSR moved into the Finland no further than "Mannerheim line" allowed?
    2
  66. + Hoyschel Silversteinberg they know KP-31
    2
  67. that's a good point
    2
  68. Problems with logistics mostly. And the Red Army was prepared to fight a little to the south
    2
  69. > Finns decided to press on with guerilla tactics and nonconventional warfare what "guerilla tactics" and "nonconvetional warfare" are you talking about? Finnish warfare was in no sense "guerilla" or "nonconventional"
    2
  70. +Darth Jar jar > like the sources i gave say. Some of your 'sources' also saying that during 1941-1944 Finns moved no further than old border. That is complete bullshit. Other source states, that Finland took part in the siege of Leningrad. So, what exactly your 'sources' are saying? >USSR invaded The Baltic states and Poland and tried to invade Finland, but failed. in our reality USSR successfully invaded Finland, but only took away part of the territory
    2
  71. +Darth Jar jar >Wich one of sources says that Finland took a part in siege of Leningrad? alternatehistory >No soviet troops got to Finland after the war I get it. You are definitely from an alternate Earth. Greetings. In our history, Finland lost some territory after USSR invasion in 1939. >No USSR weren't able take Finland Says who? >And Finland never took a part in siege of Leningrad since Finland didn't attend in bombings or attacking Leningrad. Finland took part in shelling Kronshtadt - which was part of the Leningrad defense system. Finland couldn't take part in bombings - they had little to nothing bombers. And Finland took part in the encirclement of Leningrad. If this is not a siege, then you are extremely prejudiced.
    2
  72. +Darth Jar jar >That link was about discussion of why Finland didn't advance to Leningrad and take a part in the siege. yep. And in said discussion was stated, that Finland took part in the siege. >Losing territory is nearly not same as being occupied Indeed. But does this testify to the fact that the USSR was not able to occupy Finland? BTW, residents of the city of Hanko had a different opinion about "No soviet troops got to Finland after the war" ;)
    2
  73. +Darth Jar jar >Yes by some Strangely, people who believe that the Finns did not participate in the siege of Leningrad, and people who tell tales about the fact that "Mannerheim stopped at the old border" are the same people >and it still doesn't mean they were right. shelling of Kronstadt, 1/3 of encirclement of Leningrad - not enough participation? Are not you ashamed, writing such bullshit? >Hanko was rented to USSR it was not taken. How quickly you forget "No soviet troops got to Finland". But no, I was talking about the city of Hanko, and not about the base. They are two different entities.
    2
  74. +Darth Jar jar >Finland did stop before Leningrad. Germany also stopped before Leningrad > Strangely there are still people who believe that Finland took a part in siege of Leningrad. yep. Strangely, there are still people who use their brains. >Finland never shelled Kronstadtd. Finland shelled Kronstadt. There are some finnish documents about that. It's a pity you can not Google them quickly, isn't it? >Are you no ashamed, writing with such bullshit? yes, are you not ashamed, writing with such bullshit? You know nothing about things you are trying to discuss >Still it was rented not taken of course, lol. It mean nothing, that Finland decided to go to war, if only not to give Hanko :D
    2
  75. +Darth Jar jar >And Finns didn't advance over their borders that's a dumbest fucking statement of that month. You so fucking dumb. Finns DID advance over they borders. Mostly, lol. There was like only 1,5 km strip in Karelian isthmus, where they stayed on the old border. You stupid piece of shit, did you not know that finns captured some fortifications of KaUR? It is obvious that they had to cross the line of the old border in order to do this.
    2
  76. +Darth Jar jar lolwhat? Finns stopped at Lembolovo, you stupid degenerate. That's like 10 km from over the old border. Exactly as we see in the picture
    2
  77. Your grandmother told you about Stalin's greed?
    2
  78. nope, dear sir. To put it simple - block the only road in the area in front of and behind the military unit that occupies it
    2
  79. Andrew Porter >Soviet Union declared war on The Empire of Japan a few days before they unconditionally surrendered to the Allies. it was like 28 days "before they unconditionally surrendered to the Allies.". Are you drunk or just fucking dumb?
    2
  80. +Noisivelet >one of their wars of aggression. russian war of aggression? You mean. that war, when Poland captured some part of former Russian Empire?
    2
  81. ***** why 70 millions? why not 200 millions? Hebbels taught you bad
    2
  82. pivotcat9 You know a hell of a lot about Stalin thoughts  and wishes. Did you talk to his spirit?
    2
  83. you are mistaken, dear sir
    2
  84. +1939 >which led to alot of Soviet soldiers and tanks drowning in the freezing water it's no more than a urban legend
    2
  85. 1939 yup
    2
  86. Powerofriend >I was trying to convey that not getting into such strategic disadvantage was at stake. all these objectives can be achieved by taking Helsinki >One after the other. so, no "numerically inferior force" >When Hjalmar sillasvuos arrived with his troops the defenders had the equivalent of 5 battalions. (750) men each holding back the 10000-17000 yup. But in the conditions of the terrain the soviet troops was not able to to use their numerical superiority. So it was several companies against several companies every time. >one finnish division that was at most half of what a soviet equivalent was in strength err, what? How did you calculated that? >fought off and prevented from retreating 2 divisions. One after other. And Siilasvuo could not prevent retreating of 163-th Division
    2
  87. Powerofriend >tying down Finnish units along the whole border would have sufficiently reduced the potential for resistance down south closer to the real objective of Helsinki. this happened subsequently. Finnish troops were forced to stretch out across the all front line >The planned breakthroughs turned out to be overly ambitious though. yup. Yes, it characterizes Soviet plans for the beginning of the war - "overly ambitious" >This was interesting and new to me. This figure is based on the materials of the Soviet military archives. AFAIK, there is no western Winter War researchers, except some Finns, who are working with soviet archives.Therefore, estimation of Soviet forces in wesetern sources mostly based on old figures, and in fact, are based on speculative conclusions
    2
  88. > it's essentially defeat in detail by using superior mobility and terrain to divide and crush only by using superior mobility(essentially, a well developed road network)
    2
  89. Mannerheim experiense in the imperial army has little in common with Mannerheim expirience as Finnish military leader. It was a different level
    2
  90. There is nothing special in 'motti tactics'. If you see in the deep, all it was - creating and using local superiority against forces, who suffred from cold, hunger and lock of experiense at all, in a terrain that excluded a wide maneuver. And even then there were motti's, who weren't destroyed until the war end.
    2
  91. ​ @Ozku9  >Russians lost O'rly? > it's not much of a victory when you basically got barely any land that had value, except Viipuri. USSR wanted Hankoniemi and a little of Karelian Isthmus. USSR got Hankoniemi, got all Karelian Isthmus and the part of Petsamo he needed.
    2
  92.  @Ozku9  >USSR's goal was to annex Finland ENTIRELY so, what prevented the USSR from achieving its goal? Finnish army started to disintegrate as of March 1940
    2
  93. Platoon-sized? You misspelled 'battalion-sized'
    1
  94. Robo Warrior >Nobody took the Terijoki government seriously. you talked with the spirit of Paasikivi? >Fact is that Finland didn't break. so just words again >You go first, Why not annex the entire country? Why should i go first? >3 Documentaries made by 3 different production teams and background research teams all got the same conclusion that Stalin aimed for complete take over. They were based on the same biased sources, Documentalists not work with primary sources, their task is to entertain, not to explore. Documentary films are not scientific works >Soviets weren't destroyed because there was no opportunity. OF COURCE. Mighty Skyddskår was not able to prove their capabilities :D Or not so mighty? >Iraqi army wasn't motivated like the Finns how do you measure it? You have a device for measuring the motivation? >See how good guerrilla did against a superpower? yup. But was Skyddskår a good guerilla? I think not ;) >Watch the documentaries and their sources for more info. "Watch documentaries, sources are there, somewhere... i believe". So, basically - all your sources are some biased documentaries?  so, how old are you?
    1
  95. ***** about what?
    1
  96. ***** that's a huge topic. And it's difficult to get acquainted with good sources if you do not read Finnish or Russian
    1
  97. ***** Yes, probably. As I see in comments section, they're learn some strange things about Winter War in Finland.
    1
  98.  @discovaria9507  no u
    1
  99. Забавно, что за хорошую Германию и плохой Советский Союз топят жители стран, особо отличившихся в борьбе с евреями и прочими унтерменшами. Интересно, почему так получается?
    1
  100. aleksi pulkka these are "spheres of interest", nothing more
    1
  101. aleksi pulkka Do you believe all the inscriptions on the pictures? :D Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact contained no png files
    1
  102. +Jen'Ari-Asha >you're on a bit of an anti-Finnish crusade here. nope, just exercising my mind. Besides, finns are so cute with their believes. >Simo had a spotter with him who had the task of confirming the kills. spotter checked the pulse on dead body? Or how he was checking that the "disappeared" soldier(if that soldier really existed) was killed? Not to mention friendly relations between sniper and spotter
    1
  103. >Soldiers count casualties, not kills how'd you count 'casualty' from hundreds of meters? >Will you say the same thing about the kills of Zaitsev or Pavlichenko? yep. They had opportunity to check pulse on dead body, though
    1
  104. +1939 >it is very doubtful if he killed more than 20 people. how'd you checked this? >but only 400.000 men return facepalm. Are you drunk or high? Even english wikipedia stands for 370000 casualties TOTAL
    1
  105. +1939 >it gave the Soviet population a feeling of hope, ok? So, no calculations, just plain dumb anti-soviet bias. Ok, i got it. >did you really think that Stalin would go out and say to the Russian public that the Red Army got spanked it is Stalin edited articles in the english wikipedia, then? Got it
    1
  106. +1939 trying to offend me will not add weight to your "arguments". Quite the reverse
    1
  107. Soviet camps? They were, like, tourists?
    1
  108. MsTiK >Of course they taught you in the GREAT Soviet Union that Stalin only wanted a small part so why did not he took the whole of Finland and limited to a small part of it? >And then there was the summer of 1944, another big clue. For some reason I thought that in 1944 Soviet Union fought against Hitler's ally. >And don't even try to bring up some Soviet history writing to prove me wrong, no one believes you. Really? ROFL
    1
  109. jameson44k >Soviet intentions, even operational plans, to advance across Finland have been confirmed in Russian archival material and Volkogonov's paper I've read about operational plans to advance across Finland in a book published in the early 80s, lol. >the Soviet Union set up the Terijoki Government to install as their puppet once the conquest of Finland would've been over. who says so? There is no archival materials about installing Terijoki Government after the defeat of Finland
    1
  110. It was justified by the interests of the state.
    1
  111. Finns think otherwise
    1
  112. wat?
    1
  113. ***** lol. Another wannabe nazy with "democratic Finland" :D
    1
  114. ***** i hurt your feelings? :D Yes, you are little wannabe nazi
    1
  115. Minäenkeksinimeä so, you also think that "Bolshevik whores deserves to die slow."? As I see, the Nazis are drawn to each other :D
    1
  116. Minäenkeksinimeä you support the person expressing this opinion. So you share this opinion
    1
  117. Minäenkeksinimeä >Tell how am I supporting him??? with words like "Don't care he is just a Russian "Troll" who gets paid by Kremlin." you comforted his wounded feelings. A feelings of the person, who wanted a slow death to the "Bolshevik whores". >and it could have been avoided by you guys just not invading us... it could have been avoided if Finns had agreed to the terms offered to them. As Mannerheim suggested
    1
  118. Arrrkan Zezfitifucvfz thing is, that "everyone" doesn't know, what "4chan meme arrow" is
    1
  119. Markku Hänninen >Baltics accepted what Soviet Union proposed and were still annexed And Romania wasn't annexed, despite of losing the Bessarabia
    1
  120. Markku Hänninen >How exactly it doesn't? Remember Austria? Or Greece? >Soviet Union exerted direct political control over all eastern european countries with the exception of Finland. And indirectly influenced finnish politics as well. yup. Superpowers accustomed to control their backyard. Whether it's the US or China or the Soviet Union >but that's not huge merit, is it? it's the way of any superpower, or 'would be' superpower, so i don't get your point
    1
  121. Markku Hänninen >Austria was cold war politics Yup. All post-war map was cold war politics. Not 'Evil Soviet Union trying to conquer all lands' >The difference between US occupation and Soviet occupation tends to be the end result. Like millions(or it's tens of millions now?) dead in Afghanistan and all over Middle East? On this I agree. Soviet Union has not reached that scale
    1
  122. Paul Cate yup. And USA invaded Afganistan
    1
  123. Paul Cate really? AFAIR, jankee enthusiastically destroyed their dixie countrymen. They're even invented things like Camp Douglas and Andersonville
    1
  124. Paul Cate he was joking
    1
  125. Paul Cate i read his works
    1
  126. Markku Hänninen >It was probably 90% evil Soviet Union and 10% cold war politics or 90% cold war politics and 10% something else? >For example in Estonia it meant that 10% of the population was exterminated/forcibly moved to Siberia and left to perish. exterminated? There is like near 10 thousand sentenced to death by the whole of the USSR at 1939-1941. Left to perish? The purpose of the Gulag system was to use the work of prisoners, not to condemn them to death >The purge of intelligentsia and any opposition happened in every country controlled by Soviet Union. then the uprising in Hungary and Pražské jaro were created by Soviet Union himself? And for some reason, you avoid mentioning such things as "Operation Condor"
    1
  127. Markku Hänninen >if they were shot or worked to death? or stayed in other place of Soviet Union. WW2 kinda shuffled people all over land. >Do you think it was accident and Soviets had no reason to complain about that? To whom exactly Soviet Union could complain about german war crimes? >What others do is irrelevant why? >But just because someone else makes murder, doesn't mean it is OK for you to murder someone. States in general are no more than a bunch of thugs. So, i don't understand your complains >The thing is that while USA did lots of shitty things, it also did many good things and many countries prospered under US influence. Yep. Take Iraq for example. Or South Korea(until Pak). Or South Vietnam. Or Latin American countries >Under Soviet influence countries became poor and their economies were ruined. strange thing is, that countries, who were 'poor' under Soviet influence, are even poorer now, when Soviet Union is gone. At the same time you ignore the fact that its social protection of people in developed countries are obliged to the creation and existence of the Soviet Union >And yes, it was Soviet policies that caused uprisings but you said, that opposition was purged. So, who's revolted then?
    1
  128. Markku Hänninen >They were shuffled to early grave, not other parts of the country. of course >Your state might be a thug, it doesn't mean all others are. well, not all. Only those who have the power. We exclude Luxembourg and the Vatican >Yes with all failures US had, they had stunning successes as well. success in setting record on waging wars since WW2? >they won it because they provided better living for people around the world. nope. They 'won' it cause USSR collapsed on itself >After Soviet Union fell, most are much better off Look closer at  Baltic states. From best industrial producers in USSR they 're degraded to labor suppliers and intermediaries between Russia and Europe.  And most countries of Warsaw pact were better off. >When it comes to purgings, they tend to create more hard feelings? purges in Chile did not create sufficient enough hard feelings towards Pinochet. Sufficient for coup. Maybe, it's because he really purged opposition?
    1
  129. Markku Hänninen >by what indicator were they better? a) opinions of end users б) types of manufactured products >Now it's thriving economy which earns money by commercial mediation. >Yes because it was shitty system, shitty place and people did not tolerate it anymore. by what indicator it was shitty system and shitty place? And people were told that they do not tolerate this system anymore. >Like i said earlier, you should guess that your system is shit Or it's just "At the neighbor grass is always greener"
    1
  130. Markku Hänninen >They manufactured products that had little value and very inefficiently. that's a major bullshit >Without oil, Soviet Union would have died few decades earlier. but, why Soviet Union even existed without oil? Like, decades. >By the indicator that you couldn't go to a store and buy something you wanted or needed if you had money for it, basic things taken for granted in western countries were not available or part of normal household. that's not 'indicator' at all >By the indicator that infrastructure and services were bad and not up to civilized standard. that's a bullshit >Life expectancy of Soviet citizen was decade less than citizens in western countries. Exactly when? >Yeah i'm sure all the uprisings and demands for independence were "just because someone told them". not all, of course. But late 80-s - yes, indeed. >Why other countries were OK without having border guards to keep people in? maybу because they were overpopulated? Or some other reasons? >What a mystery. yep
    1
  131. +pofkeltlt that's a very strong statement. Do you have any confirmation for it, except "everybody know that"?
    1
  132. +Sharper could you be more specific?
    1
  133. pofkeltlt >and we do learn about a lot in history class, parents, grandparents. yep, we all know how Baltic states loves to portray the "demonic Soviet Union". And their waffen SS parades. >A Lithuanian writer Dalia grinkevičiūtė, ha a book where she wrote about her won experience of life in banishment to Siberia with her family, form when she was a young kid. but earlier you said "in all land it occupied". Are you implying that USSR only occupied Lithuania? >Also the Ukrainian starvation genocide, holodomor. Ukrainian? It looks like you're not familiar with the history. Basically, all USSR starved
    1
  134.  @freerbx793  google "Concentration camps in East Karelia"
    1
  135.  @freerbx793  you were saying "Oh, it's no so large, besides, there were Gulag etc.". And yes, that's an old rhetorical device
    1
  136. As a matter of fact, it was the other way around. At the time first assault on Mannerheim Line ceased
    1
  137. Nope, they wouldn't. "For Great, Unified and Indivisible Russia" - One of the mottos of the White movement
    1
  138. +Heart Fire >Pyrrhic victory. soviets conquered a bunch of snow and trees. Vyborg and Hanko are nothing like "bunch of snow and trees" > finns however went down as history's northern badasses finns went down as "pink". Read something about "finlandization"
    1
  139. +Darth Jar jar >The soviets had huge casualties against a small country and they only took about 10-15% land from Finland so? >According to the secret protocol of the Molotov-ribbentrop pact Thing is, there is nothing in the secret protocols about invading Finland And, you contradict yourself. Or the USSR was going to capture Finland, or it captured only 10% of the territory
    1
  140. +Darth Jar jar >They ​were occupied by soviet troops, that is more than an influence. "Sphere of influence" means that other country (Germany in that case) will not interfere in your affairs with countries inside said "sphere". The occupation is not obligatory >they really didn't not much at least. maybe it's because they didn't want to do much?
    1
  141. + Darth Jar jar >failed do so to Finland. did he? > USSR wanted it like it wanted the Baltic states and part of Poland. says who?
    1
  142. +Darth Jar jar >Yes USSR did Finland remained its independence no soviet troops were in Finland after the war. and maybe, just maybe, USSR didn't want to capture Finland? >The secret additional protocol of the Molotov-ribbentrop pact there is nothing about 'occupation of Finland' in the secret additional protocol of the Molotov-ribbentrop pact. You know that. >and the fact that Baltic states Poland were taken bu the USSR. so, you ignore the fact that Finland was not taken by USSR. This is a strong bias
    1
  143. +Darth Jar jar >Then why was it mentioned with the Baltic states and Poland that were both occupied by USSR? we discussed it earlier >According to the secret additional protocol of the Molotov-ribbentrop pact Finland with Baltic states and part of Poland would of have belonged to USSR. nope. And you didn't read the protocol text, or you would not write such bullshit >And why would USSR create a puppet goverment (Democratic republic of Finland) led by exiled Finnish reds ready for Finland if it wasn't going to take over Finland? Maybe, to scare government of the Finland, made it more compliant? >No i don't ignore it yes, you do ignore it >my point is that USSR tried to invade Finland like it took the Baltic states and Poland while failing to take Finland. your point is based exactly on nothing, besides your wishes >Not as strong as yours really? You know about the Winter war only what is written in wikipedia and in the first links found in Google. And you talking that i am biased?
    1
  144. +Darth Jar jar >You still didn't asnwer my question. i answered earlier. "Spheres of interests", remember? >Yes and you most likely didn't read it. no, you didn't read. There is nothing about "belonging" in the text. So you are lied like two times already. >Why would of Finland become more compliant when USSR created puppet goverment ready for Finland? out of fear that USSR occupied Finland for real? >No it is based on the secret additional protocol of the Molotov-ribbentrop pact there is nothing in secret additional pact about 'failed occupation of Finland', lol >I haven't used wikipedia. you are used Wikipedia, when you read about the contents of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So, you lied third time >You denie USSR's invasion attempt of Finland there were no 'attempts', lol. USSR INVADED Finland. Are you nuts or what?
    1
  145. +Darth Jar jar >My differend word usage doesn't make me a liar. yes it does. Secret protocols text is very simple. But you did not quote the text from the protocol, but the text from Wikipedia. >And why would USSR think that by first scaring Finland and then asking Finland to give part of its territory to USSR it would those lands? because it happened in the real history. Kuusinen's government was an excellent bugaboo at the conversations >and i never said so. You said that you point about 'failed attempt to capture Finland' is base on the secret additional pact. So, you lied like fifth time. >No i haven't none of links are Wikipedia you are just making falsse allegations. You are quoting Wikipedia, lol. You are shameless liar indeed
    1
  146.  @XoravaX  >This is evident by that the commander of the Leningrad MD, Kirill Meretskov, said in public that Finland will capitulate within 2 weeks you clearly do not realize difference between capitulation, which means 'ceasing to struggle' and occupation
    1
  147. General Frost suddenly changed his mind during February
    1
  148. there were no "guerilla warfare" in Winter War. And motti tactics has nothing in common with guerillas
    1
  149. +Jen'Ari-Asha >But they also lost one million men that's some serious bullshit. >That is also correct. evidently, it's bullshit
    1
  150. + Jen'Ari-Asha So, how about 'lost one million men' bullshit?
    1
  151. >Many Russian tanks disappeared through the ice. that's a fairy tales. Really, man
    1
  152. +Suomen poika >Over 400,000 of 1,000,000 soviet casualties in those wars were starved to death or frozen to death. you were intoxicated, while writing that nopsense?
    1
  153. +Suomen poika >I was not that's bad for you. >what I typed wasn't nonsense. it was nonsense. You can check it for yourself
    1
  154. nope. It was very conventional warfare
    1
  155. +Riku Penttila > against 2 soviet divisions and a brigade with 45 000-55 000 soldiers. not all of them were encircled. And there were about 7000 battle casualties on the Raate road
    1
  156. Don't be ridiculous. There were no such thing like constant assault for 19 hours a day. Low temperature, hunger and bad clothes were much worse
    1
  157. +Fortune >To put it in simple terms, Vadzislav, the Winter War is more like the Vietnam War than it is, say, the Battle of Kursk. to put it in simple terms, the Winter War is more like the Battle for Leningrad and has little in common with Vietnam War >Look up "conventional warfare" and "nonconventional warfare" in a dictionary, "The American definition of UW is: Unconventional Warfare consists of activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow an occupying power or government by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary or guerrilla force in a denied area."  Sooo. How it applies to the Winter War? >the Finnish way of fighting, in the Winter War, "Went against convention" really? Using massed infantry - check. Heavily relying on long-term fortified line - check. Using artillery - check. Using airplanes - check. What, excactly, from this list "went against convention"? >Don't be an idiot. You come up with your own meanings for terms, and yet you call me an idiot?
    1
  158. >You are an idiot. we will see >The Viet Kong had logistics and garrisons. so, anyone who uses logistics and garrions are guerilla? Ok. > You did not provide a SOURCE for your "American definition" You did not provided sourcec for you definition either. So, i googled it >The definition you provided, moron, is the American TACTIC, DOCTRINE, for CONDUCTING AMERICAN UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE ABROAD So what? You give the same exact definition. But, being an brainless idiot, you do not understand this >Emphasis: "Against orthodox military forces" Emphasis: "by irregulars". Remind me, was 9-th infantry division an 'irregular' in any way? >more information in general about Finnish tactics and what makes it different from most WW2 combat. yep, bullshit article by bullshit author - an authoritative source for idiots like you. >You are also confusing "Winter War" a purely defensive conflict with "Continuation War" Nope, you brainless fuck. You know shit about Winter War, which is not surprising, considering what kind of crap sources you use. >Finnish strategy of the time was specifically outlined the fact that to engage the enemy head-on, was never to be considered if an alternative existed. Lol. You are so pathetic. Flanking the enemy - STANDARD military tactic. Soviet troops regularly used this maneuver while advancing along Raate road. But since you have shit for brains, you don't know you own history. >Now, you mention trenches. Just because the Russian leadership was frankly retarded enough to throw their men at prepared MG positions does not mean that this is conventional warfare. Really? And why it isn't conventional warfare? Btw, do you know, what CONVENTIONAL WARFARE means? Of course not. >That was the logic of the trenches and prepared MG positions. You see - guerillas didn't face enemies head on. Moreover, guerillas do not sit in dugouts for months, repelling attacks. On the other hand, the military is doing just that. Conventional, as you'll say >The Finnish military never intended to engage in conventional warfare, because it was suicide. the Finnish military engaged in conventional (or orhodox, as you may call it) warfare. With artillery, aviation, submarines, large masses of infantry and fortified lines. Indeed, you are an cristal clear, shit for brains moron
    1
  159. >CloneD Anon Finland never took a part in seige of Leningrad. Really? That's nice, coming from a man, who is talking about 'USSR plans of conquering Finland'
    1
  160. +Big E strangely, you started the conversation by speculating about who won the war. Now you are talking about 'peaceful finns'. Looks like finnish "victory" not so obvious now, eh:?
    1
  161.  @alemon9727  it takes two to tango
    1
  162.  @арефнар  что?
    1
  163.  @Aivottaja  bla-bla-bla
    1
  164. ivan the kebab, furry and brony remover fiinish SMG's weren't regular infantry weapons. They were relatively cheap substitute for the  machine guns.  Besides, SMG's at that time(1930-1941) weren't regular infantry weapon at all. They were weapons of specialized units, like paratroopers or assault units. They were considerably more expensive than mass-produced bolt-action rifles, while much less versatile. Only with the development of World War II, emerged cheap SMG's, produced in large quantities
    1
  165. ivan the kebab, furry and brony remover >they were quite widely included in the arsenal of the troops when compared to SAWs nope. Their were on pair with light machine guns. >they were one of the most common weapons used by the ski troopers 'specialized units'. Soviet ski troopers and OSNAZ units were often fully armed with Fedorov Avtomat's (that's an early assault rifle). But this does not mean that the assault rifle were regular weapon of soviet infantry at that time
    1
  166. MakeMeThinkAgain 1941. That's all about the STEN
    1
  167. lol
    1
  168. Unknown1355 >and even having military cooperation after the Pact mmm. This is something new and unknown to historians.Would you like to shed light on the facts of the said military cooperation?
    1
  169. Unknown1355 Brest - an example of political cooperation. Invasion of Poland - a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in this case there was no cooperating militaries
    1
  170. ***** another little Nazi itt ;)
    1
  171. ***** what a charming little Nazi :D
    1
  172. ***** estimates, of course. Hebbels taught you bad. Btw, are you're trying to divert attention from your sympathy for Nazi Germany and Japan Empire?
    1
  173. ***** i think that you clearly preferred Nazy Germany and Japan Empire over Soviet Union, you little slimy Nazy
    1
  174. pivotcat9 you'd better double-check your sources. Because statements like "Stalin trusted Hitler to keep his part of the deal" are complete nonsense
    1
  175. Kapteeni Lauri Allan Törni >Soviets didn't destroy Finnish divisions at all really? Lol. >even when outnumbered by tens of thousands. what a nice little finnish bias here.
    1
  176. Kapteeni Lauri Allan Törni of course, if finnish division managed to withdraw with 1/3 losses - she wasn't formally destroyed, of course :D It's good that you stopped writing bullshit about "outnumbered by tens of thousands" >And stop Greentexting in Youtube for fucks sake. Who are you to fucking lecture me?
    1
  177. Kapteeni Lauri Allan Törni > Battle of Tali-Ihantala: Finnish forces 50.000 vs Soviets 150.000. bullshit, lol >Battle of Raatteentie: 6000-10.000 Finnish Jaegers vs Elite Ukrainian rifle division of 25.000 troops. bullshit, lol >Battle of Suomussalmi: 11.000 Finnish troops vs 45-55.000 Soviet soldiers. bullshit, lol You are full of bullshit, son. Go read REAL history books, not some junk from the Internet. And then you can talk with adults
    1
  178. schnitzel2121 да елы-палы, у человека полно какого-то совершенно детского говна в голове, о чем его спрашивать
    1
  179. Kapteeni Lauri Allan Törni >Do you have something against Mongols? You were so eager to mention it. you slimy liitle nazi ;) >And no these aren't my figures, these are figures of Historians foreign, Finnish and Soviet as well and that had seen the battles. bullshit >But i don't expect you to understand anything yup. It's hard to understand some finnish wannabe nazi babble
    1
  180. Kapteeni Lauri Allan Törni another finnish wannabe nazi babble? Go play, kiddo :D
    1
  181. Kapteeni Lauri Allan Törni you can't say much. Because you have a small brain. That's a nazi thing
    1
  182. >you know what happens You fuck Finns over?
    1
  183. hmm. But Finns were fucked over. Like, two times
    1
  184. +McAkkeezz Finns learned their lesson. Like the Swedes before them.
    1
  185. +Kekistani Propaganda minister you got your numbers wrong. No wonder for a toad, though
    1
  186. +Kekistani Propaganda minister you are asking to much for a toad
    1
  187. +Kekistani Propaganda minister and why should I do that?
    1
  188. +Kekistani Propaganda minister that's a toad logic. Kinda flawed. BTW, you didn't provided any source of said 'facts'. Lol
    1
  189. +Kekistani Propaganda minister I'm afraid to upset you, but the data on Soviet losses are based on a book, materials for which were collected in the early 90's. Since then, more than 20 years have passed
    1
  190. +Jooki99 Playz you actually read Krivosheev's book? I'm very, very doubt that. So, shut the fuck up, mindless mook :D
    1
  191. But USSR fucked Finns. Like, three times
    1
  192. + mr13377 Finland was much stronger either
    1
  193. The Gladiators were also obsolete. So, their were on pair with likes of I-15. And, as one man said, "I encourage people to take any Swedish-originated info on aid to FInland during the Winter War with a big load of salt."
    1
  194. Tom nr 1 >Cause their where more Gladiators shooting down the I-15 then the opposite? numbers of fighter planes, lost in combat, are roughly equivalent. Finnish fighter pilots used tactical advantages, locally creating numerical superiority, although globally they were considerably inferior in the number than they Soviet counterpart
    1
  195. Russian winter essentially is more severe. Just look at the map
    1
  196. >No significant strategic advantage? yup. Nobody lived there, so no roads, no willages, etc. > numerically inferior force immobilized and destroyed an advancing column infantry division against infantry division. Yes, someone there was numerically inferior :D
    1
  197. Powerofriend >It was not achieved. yup. But but it has nothing to do with fighting to the north of Lake Ladoga >Soviet army rifle divisions were 19 000 men strong. nope, lol. 163th division had about 13000 troops, and 44th - about 17000 listed. Though  44th experienced problems collecting its units together and actual number may be less. Also, other units of 9th Army took part in the  battles of Suomussalmi. >163rd was not enclosed in the Motti at Raate road but that road was the line of their retreat and it was severed. so, no retreat prevented. In fact, 163th stayed in Suomussalmi on the orders of High Command and against the opinion of the commander of the 9th Army
    1
  198. Alexander Seven ну как. Финны как раз "зажигали", когда создавали и уничтожали котлы. А тот же Зеленцов, командир 163-й, был вполне с боевым опытом человек.
    1
  199. nope, it was the other way around
    1
  200. nope
    1
  201. 44th - maybe, somewhat. Units of 163rd were beaten in direct engagement, using large masses of infantry and numerical superiority
    1
  202. >In fact, the winner of the war was the one who fulfilled his goal. ROFLMAO >The goal of the Soviet Union was to conquer Finland. The goal of Soviet Union was to get Hankoniemi and to move border from Leningrad. >it was defence victory to finns ROFLMAO
    1
  203.  aua  you only sent a signature without a message
    1
  204.  aua  you're melting, boyo
    1
  205.  aua  Y
    1
  206. it wasn't asymmetric in any way
    1
  207. Finnish army didn't fight like a partisans
    1
  208. >the Finnish units were from the area nope, they weren't. Quite a little population lived at the place
    1
  209. stolen land? It's like that land belonged to Finland in the first time
    1
  210.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  basically you are saying that Austria belongs to Germany and Canada belongs to Britain
    1
  211.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  >The Austrian people are different from current native Germans same goes to Finland >and you seem to be forgetting that the English weren't the first ones to live in Canada... same goes to Finnic people
    1
  212.  @donthasselthehoff5753  well, it wasn't a wise move for Finland to use weakness of USSR and annex lands so close to Petrograd. Some people there knew that it wouldn't end well, but nobody had listen them
    1