Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. quality work, as always
    40
  2. that's a gem of a comment. Bit too late, though
    27
  3. I'd say that loosing quite a lot of Finnish man for nothing was a wrong doing
    23
  4.  @alganhar1  >But I guess that means you have to accept that your country was the aggressor in the Winter War. there is nothing to *accept*. USSR was the aggressor in the Winter War.
    20
  5. ​ @andreastiefenthaler3811  > the SU, as you stated, planned another war to annex or sovietize Finnland as a whole says who? >They had just waged an agressive war and annexed Finnish Karelia and deported tens of thousands of Finns/Karelians to Gulag or Siberia just? Year and a half has passed since then >probably Petrozavodsk etc., this area was heavily disputed during the Finnish war of independence and afterwards and only became russified after 1945 That's outright bullshit >The Karelian SSR was purposfully founded as a "Soviet Finnland" in 1923 to annex the rest later That's outright bullshit > I wager 99,9% of Karelians would have happily joined Finnland. That's outright bullshit >However I think the exact motivations will forever stay shrouded by post-war narratives. exact motivations were "gain some territories while big guys fighting each other"
    11
  6.  @michealohaodha9351  and somehow all those Finns who died without any meaning but greed of their government will be resurrected?
    11
  7.  @michealohaodha9351  for the Soviets it was a defensive war. So, they had no hand in that
    11
  8. +Ixsalit I can assure you that Isayev forgot about German tactics more than you ever knew.
    11
  9.  @horatio8213  strangely, 'neutral Finland' provided troops to attack Murmansk. Look 'Operation Silberfuchs'
    10
  10.  @scosprey  so, saying things that contradicts your beliefs makes me a troll, huh?
    8
  11. >Try to stay out of the war with Germany vs Soviets? Sweden did that. Portugal and Spain did that. But Finland didn't want to stay neutral, Finland wanted these sweet sweet Karelian woods >There are always few that dreamed aboug "Big Finland terroritories" but that was vast minority, Yes, Finland government was a minority. Quite a influential minority, though
    8
  12. ​ @seanmac1793  >do really think the the SU would just let Finland continue as an independent state. it happened in our reality. Couple of years after war Soviet Union even withdrew troops from military base inside Finland, before territory lease agreement was ended > But I don’t see how it’s any less justified than soviet aggression in the winter war Soviet aggression in Winter War isn't justified in any way. It was the thing that was necessary to do to secure the state borders. On the part of the Finland - I highly doubt that it was really necessary to fight a Hitler's war
    8
  13. >I personally don't think the germans were different from the british or the americans or the soviets , it was war treating non-combatants(not mentioning Jews) in German manner was something new and fresh. All those fancy orders about hanging and shooting
    7
  14.  @MrBigCookieCrumble  >why else would they have tried to invade finland in the first place? To get naval base at the entrance of Gulf of Finland and move border from Leningrad. Read wikipedia at least, for Christ's sake
    7
  15.  @michealohaodha9351  so, no resurrection for Finns, send to their deaths by their corrupt power-hungry government?
    7
  16. "there is a qualitative moral difference between open and specific racism and exterminationist antisemitism on the one hand and a form of philosophical materialism which deprioritises human sentiment and the individual resulting in policies which waste lives through negligence and callousness" - well said
    7
  17. +mitch verr please, stop spreading bullshit
    7
  18. Latvian SS Divisions partially consisted of Latvian Schutzmannschaft batallions(those guys, who actually killed Jews, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc). So, I don't quite understand that part about ''only part of Victor Arajs unit committed crimes'. Also, looks like you didn't noticed what Glant's said about young man forced to choose between labor and military service. For me it doesn't look like they were forced to take arms
    6
  19. Thing is, that the title of the book is chosen by the publisher, not by the author. So there was a title "The greatest tank battle"
    6
  20. >even Russian documentaries note how Finland was unwillingly to tighten the noose around Leningrad there were(and are) all kinds of weirdos in Russia, who believe in 'noble Mannerheim, who loved Sankt-Peterburg and didn't wished death to his people' >despite having the strength to but they didn't had the strength to >they more or less stopped at the prewar border they don't . Just look at the map. Finn didn't stop at the old border > and in turn, became a core reason why Stalin accepted the Finn's change of sides later nope. Stalin accepted Romania change of sides, and Romanians weren't good guys
    6
  21. ​ @alganhar1  > I am sure Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia tried to stay Neutral... nope, they don't. > Invaded them didn't you? nope. Do you homework. >Portugal stayed Neutral basically because Britain asked them too, yes, seriously. so, nobody asked Finland? Somehow I doubt that. What about Spain and Sweden and Switzerland? >You talking about the Finnish Leadership haing dreams of Empire being a small but powerful minority is the pot calling the kettle black. what pot and kettle has to do with Finnish government wanting to capture Soviet Union territories?
    6
  22. TIK Just for you to know - hypothesis about deliberate nature of 1932-1933 Famine originates in "theory" that 1932-1933 Famine was targeted against Ukrainians. Oleh Wolowyna says directly, that Ukrainians were targets, despite their place of living. To me, it looks like he had answer long before the research. You can't just go and trust a man, even if he has a prefix "Dr." in front of the name. To fill the picture, we should see the criticism of his works
    5
  23. >One wonders why the Russians lost almost 9 Million soldiers kiilled in WW2 would you call a soldier, who died from cold and hunger in prison camp a "killed soldier"?
    5
  24.  @day2148  >Keeping in mind that every documentary series coming out of Russia about the Great Patriotic War receives the stamp of approval from Ministry of Culture. AFAIK, no. You know otherwise? >Stalin didn't leave Romania with any independence though to your(and mine) surprise, Romania was quite independent. Just look at the history of diplomatic relationships between USSR and Romania after WW2
    5
  25. ​ @jaccexx7565  >The "sweet karealian woods" you are refering to where kind of attacked by your own country few months earlier nope. The "sweet karelian woods" I was referring belonged to Soviet Union since 1918. And Finland made a number of attempts to take them by armed force >. that might be an news to you but Finland is actually democratic country unlike Soviets those days Aaaaaaand... nothing changed. They waged aggressive war against USSR, they built concentration camps of their own. >As said your own coutnry leader Stalin forced the finns to choose with his imperialist and aggressive actions. As said, Finns could choose and stay neutral. Like Sweden. But they couldn't. Those sweet, sweet karelian woods....
    5
  26. ​ @horatio8213  >Soviet Union keep bases on taken finish teritory, Hanko naval base forced by Mocov Treaty! yes. And how that makes Finland "neutral"? >What goverment of Finland have to do squeez between two totalitarian monsters! Sweden somehow managed being squeezed and staying neutral. > from start Soviets knew about german forces in Finland but protest when they realize that is not only small sentry forces but something more. So, you acknowledge that Finland wasn't neutral? > Finland was basicly pushed to war when both Germany and USSR preparationn to invade eachother. USSR prepared to invade Germany? From what planet you are? And how that makes Finland "neutral"? And for the last. You were saying, that "In the first days of Barbarossa Soviet air force attack still neutral Finland pushing it to war". Then you said that Finland placed German troops on its territory. Did you you forgot what you wrote earlier or there are two people writing under "​Horatio82"? > And Finland go to war when Soviet bombs civilian targets, not germans units or bases! bullshit. Placing German troop on Finland territory was act of war, thus becoming an enemy. And by "civilian targets" you mean cities, ports and railroads?
    5
  27. >and also that "German tanks were so much better" you're lying. Official USSR propaganda NEVER could aasert than ANY foreign technology was better than Soviet. So, you pull that statement completely out of your ass
    5
  28. +TIK >Is Putin is censoring history? nope. You could have some trouble, though, if your activity will be regarded as propagandizing Nazism or provoking interethnic discord >And what does Article 354.1 say? "You should not justify the crimes of Nazism, publicly disseminate false information about the activities of the USSR in World War II, publicly desecrate symbols of military glory or disseminate information about memorable dates associated with the defense of the Motherland expressing obvious disrespect for society"
    5
  29. +Лев Кадик это доказательство того, что немцы могли на один наш снаряд отвечать тремя своими. Немецкие победы - они не от столько от того, что немцы такие крутые, сколько от того, что из промышленность позволяла им воевать на несколько фронтов сразу, при этом не выходя на чрезвычайные обороты. Как мы с немцами сравниваться начали, так и фронт на запад покатился
    5
  30. +WolfschanzeArchiv Moreover, Germany was also winning because of numbers. So it goes
    5
  31. Describing the breakthrough of the Mannerheim Line, Trotter brings everything to the human wave that sweeps the defending Finns. I doubt that this happened at least once during the war. The lessons of the First World War were learned a long time ago. "Mow down hundreds of man " - a typical clishe. About "Mannerheim decided not to take part in the siege of Leningrad" - it wasn't so. Mannerheim decided not to help the Germans to attack Leningrad
    4
  32. +Kastor Hallavainio >just the amount of mostly Ukrainian bodies how they check nationality of the body? >the amount of deaths both Finland AND USSR reported pretty much back this "Mowing down hundreds of men". Can you be more precise? As far as i know, there were no such thing as "mowed down hundred of man". In particularly unfortunate cases, these were several dozen at a time. >About Leningrad: Finns did not try to intercept supplies to Leningrad over the lake ladoga which is the definition of "Siege" they simply could not do anything about supplies on Ladoga lake. But they(and Germans) tried to close the ring of encirclement on the Svir >neither did the Finns strike at Leningrad with aircraft or artillery And how exactly could they do this? Without the presence of long-range artillery and bomber aircraft in sufficient numbers? They had some things to do in the north, remember? >Next you're probably going to tell us that the shelling of Mainila really happened with Finnish artillery shooting way past their maximum range. I wonder why you remembered Mainila in the discussion about breakthrough of the Mannerheim Line and siege of Leningrad?
    4
  33.  @MrBigCookieCrumble  >Finland's lands were considered valuable enough by the USSR nope. Look at what USSR got after Winter War >The Soviet Union conquered a ton of neighbouring countries who all had very low "points of interest" nope. You can't name any such country
    4
  34. because Finland had no means for active offensive operations?
    4
  35. >not an ally curious. Finnish troops fighted alongside German troops. Finland provided bases for German fleet. Not an ally? >The difference is that allies are bound to fight for each other if either is attacked nope >Finland did not have to attack the USSR in 1941 as an ally would Japan, for example, didn't attacked USSR in 1941
    4
  36.  @jaccexx7565  >you are so deluded prove me wrong, please. Or you just have nothing except beliefs?
    4
  37.  @jaccexx7565  >It has been proven by many authors what "it" is? That Finland didn't aimed at SU territory? Or that there weren't countries who stayed neutral despite being close to Germany or SU? >Looked at this page and only thing noticed that you were trolling around without any substantial knowledge my knowledge is definitely more substantial than yours. After all, I know that Finland captured territories of Karelia that didn't belong to it. Fact you wasn't aware of until yesterday
    4
  38.  @jaccexx7565  so, no clear answer, just emotions. Got it
    4
  39. Bulgaria didn't fight the USSR, AFAIR. Romania and Hungary had borders with USSR and now, in fact, they are trying to assimilate some parts of former USSR. Italy just supported ally, in exchange for Germany fighting their war in Mediterranean
    4
  40. +mitch verr > the government says what is false, not historians Are you 10 years old or what? The government does not investigate the charges, for this there is a court and a prosecutor
    4
  41.  @popsey72  >my grandfather never lied yes. All those guys 'never lied' >I have no interest to waste my time on some of Prigozins troll. looks like when you have no facts to put on the table, you have to refer to grandfather and trolls ;) >You don't know a shit I bet I know more than you on the topic >You are the sorry existent of what Russia has become. as far as you know, I can live in any place in the world. But you instantly remembered Russia, Prigozin etc. Were you brainwashed, by any chance?
    4
  42.  @dobypilgrim6160  >With no Mannerheim Line, it would have been a cake walk facepalm. Finns held quite good when Mannerheim line was lost.
    4
  43. D3adtrap > I've never heard anyone making the case, that we were the victims in continuation war I saw quite a lot of people in youtube comments, who were making exactly such case. I think, they were Finns, judging by their names
    4
  44.  @popsey72  >Russian army "evacuated" all livestock, all food and all adult in working age, leaving the sick, old and children left behind without food. so Finns helped them, placing them in concentration camps. Strangely, they escaped those camp(what was punishable by death) to find *some food*. Which, as you said, there was no >Many of the inhabitants of east Karelia where Russian, Belarus and Ukrainans that had been moved there by force and only lived there for a couple of years. facepalm. It is not like there were a major infrastructure projects, who required people from all of the country
    4
  45.  @popsey72  Finnish occupation placed ethnic Russians in concentration camps. Children, sick and old. Try and ignore that fact
    4
  46.  @seanmac1793  to help them do what - capture some of SU territory?
    4
  47.  @scorpionWhite  >Finland was a victim poor little Finland, forced to side with Hitler(long before June 25) and capture all those sweet Karelian woods
    4
  48. jeffrey dahmere >non-combatants whats exactly that I think, wikipedia has quite extensive definition of the term >if you gave housing , food or passed a intelligence or do propaganda from the those who are fighting , you are part of the war I'm sure you would gladly help lieutenant Calley boys shoot Vietnamese babies.They were part of the war, after all. >besides that the soviets didn't sight up the geneva conventions thats why you have "All those fancy orders about hanging and shooting" AFAIR, Geneva conventions before war say nothing about civilians. So, what do you mean by "that's why"? >there was many cases of misconduct on both sides not only german but on most cases it was punished we are not talking about misconduct. Because on the German side it was quite opposite - soldiers, who executed orders to shoot hostages, did the good thing.
    3
  49. >they refused to complete the encirclement of Leningrad because they can't? > A true member of the Axis would have complied with the encirclement. if he had forces to do so. Btw, do you consider Japan to be a 'true member of Axis'? Japan traded with USSR during WW2, you know that?
    3
  50. really? Was Finland so precious to Germany or to USSR to capture it?
    3
  51.  @ohhibob1006  but how are they related to Finland? >Finland also received demands to take key defensive locations nope
    3
  52. ​ @mabussubam512  >It's not like Stalin took any good actions on liberating the starving city as a matter of fact - he took good actions. It's not like USSR armies just smoked cigars watching at Leningrad starving > Why waste the opportunity to wage propaganda-warfare against the losing side? ROFL. You really think that USSR had no real life examples except Leningrad?
    3
  53. >considering the unjust land grab on the part of the Russians so, land grab on the part of the Finns was just?
    3
  54. >In the continuation war they never advanced beyond the border line of 1939. Facepalm. Look at the border line of 1939. Look at the border line of 1942. Hit yourself in the face
    3
  55. >Stalin' blocked the PPSH nope. Stalin blocked PPD, because it was a darn expensive and USSR had semiauto rifles
    3
  56. Isaev's book was first published in 2004, maybe that's the point with the numbers of tanks etc. In any case, as far as the Eastern Front is concerned, I will put Isayev above Glantz. He has much more opportunities to use primary sources from the Soviet side
    3
  57. >All guilt, all of it, thus falls on Soviet Russia. lol. So, evil Stalin forced peaceful finns to side with Hitler and go to 4 year futile war :D
    3
  58. you have that Germans starved Russian prisoners of war to death. By millions
    3
  59. >Finland and Germany had a common enemy and was working togheter but they was not allied yep. Not allied to the point where German troops were part of Finnish units under Finnish command. Not allied at all. Could you please point me to some US Special Forces troops under command of Suheil al-Hassan?
    3
  60. >To the north and east was Norway, now occupied by the Germans. and somewhere there was neutral Sweden >The alternatives to saying no to Hitler were either: A. Wait for the Soviets to finish the job and annex the whole country or B. Wait for Germany to invade via Norway and the Baltic Sea. C. wait until nothing happened
    3
  61. >Continuation War Pre-Planned? NO, IT WAS NOT. ROFL. You know very little about your own history, do you? Maybe you should try and check, when German troops, assigned to Operation Silver Fox, started to arrive in Finland
    3
  62. Oh. yes. Suvorov. Of course. Great histroian with zero facts. Лабусы любят Суворова :D
    3
  63. > Then wonder if Finnish troops really wanted to participate on siege of Leningrad would anything have stopped them. yes, those famous Finnish terminators. Who could accomplish Germans can't. Except they were not. >They had already whole northern side of Leningrad really? I don't remember KaUr being a part of the northern side of the Leningrad >How on earth you think Leningrad got constant food supply from north (Murmansk) without Finns shooting a single supply column because they were poor bastards, who had almost no long-range artillery piece or decent bombers? >even they mastered whole territory north of Leningrad? If you mean 'north of the Ladoga lake', you should check out 'Road of Life' and look, that it started nowhere near to north shore of Ladoga. And on the Ladoga lake... Finns got virtually nothing
    3
  64.  @popsey72  we discussed that earlier. >There where nothing between Finnish Army and Leningrad the first weeks of September. except KaUR fortifications and exhaustion of the Finnish army itself >Leningrad Peoples milita would have been crushed like a bug if they would have tried to stop Finnish army. Strangely, Germans didn't managed that fit
    3
  65.  @jarskil8862  > So thats why there is small justification for Soviets will to move the border. I know they didn't teach you that in the school but british naval forces, based on Finland territory, attacked Kronstadt >But Finns would have fought against Germans on "Soviet side" or not
    3
  66.  @Bassap_  >and the continuation war was a backlash for it. as I said earlier "loosing quite a lot of Finnish man for nothing was a wrong doing" >Had not there been an attack from the soviets in the first place, both wars could have been avoided. Had not there been a greedy politicians in Finland government, second war could have been avoided
    3
  67.  @verticallogic5909  >But you might want to consider why all of Eastern Europe threw off communism during the mid/late eighties. what it has to do with Stalin? Btw, you didn't answered about good guys and their rights to claim someone's territory
    3
  68. you prefer Khrushchev claims over real data?
    3
  69. +Jukka Kurola >it seems to be illegal in Russia to tell inconvenient facts about Russian military history. nope
    3
  70. +mitch verr he wasn't fined "for simply stating that Russia invaded Poland". You could read for yourself, what he really was fined for
    3
  71. nothing. They had no means to do anything serious
    3
  72. ​ @nikolaangelov3583  >Explain the winter war then There is nothing to be explained. Look at what USSR wanted from Finland - naval base at the entrance of Gulf of Finland and moving border from Leningrad. Look at what USSR got from Finland - naval base at the entrance of Gulf of Finland, moving border from Leningrad, nickel from Petsamo and some territories in the center of Karelia
    3
  73. >The choice wasn't necessarily popular but it had to be one or the other or he third
    3
  74.  @jm-holm  >The 2 remaining options were to accept German help or be invaded by the Soviet union. why Soviet Union should invade Finland?
    3
  75.  @jm-holm  >Because Finland was still part of the "Soviet sphere of influence" as outlined in the molotov-ribbentrop pact 'sphere of influence' says nothing about occupation. It says only about 'not interfering with interests of other country' > every other nation which was occupied by the Soviets in WW2. what it has to do with 'spheres of influence'? >Everybody knew a second invasion was coming. "Everybody" who? >As you heard from the video the Soviets even made inquiries with the Germans if they were still "allowed" to freely invade Finland. I read about these negotiations. And, as I understand them, USSR expressed concern about the increasing German presence at the Finland soil, in contradiction to pact
    3
  76. when you see that one superpower are going to attack another and you offer help in hope to gain some territories
    3
  77. ​ @popsey72  Poor mindwashed boy, you you continue to fight for other people's views that were put in your head. "In your head, in your head, they are fighting"(с)
    3
  78. +Great Jamie Mannerheim didn't used nothing. He was supreme commander. He was way above any tactics. Tactics was the responsibility of officers of a lower level. And skiers didn't attacked tanks, lol - at night or otherwise.
    2
  79. >Soviet Union considered Finland as a problem of former Tsardom and wanted it back ROFL. No. >Therefore they put unreasonable demands on Finns which cannot be fulfilled As far as I remember, Mannerheim urged Finland government to fulfill those demands. At least he says so in his memoirs
    2
  80. >Soviet Russia, firstly tried to "annex" Finland "peacefully" through communist victory in finnish parliament resulting in Soviet-Finnish war (1918-1920). facepalm. The purpose of the Soviet Russia at the time was to export the revolution, not to acquire a new territories. They wanted to 'annex' Finland no more than 'annex' Hungary or Germany(they also had socialist republics at the time) >Similar situation occured in Latvia (1940) where communists voted for entry to Soviet Union. double facepalm. Soviet Union in 1940 was a different country, with much more pragmatic and imperialistic goals. >Teritorial exchange was unfair as Finland had to sacrifice Hanko naval base and Karelia which was basically na industrial heart of Finland for wastelands in the North. Soviet Union din't demanded all Karelian Isthmus, only to move border. And Finland had fought against Soviet Union for those exact "wastelands in the North" several times >Furthermore, Soviet Union planned the offensive to last for five days ending with conquering of Helsinki as a birthday gift for Stalin. that's quite interesting story they teach you in schools. Because if you read the real plan, you'll find that terms for the defeat of enemy units on the Karelian Isthmus were set to 8-10 days
    2
  81. >Must be because they were so awesome! yup. It's quite an achievement - to beat technically superior enemy
    2
  82. > it's worth noting that Russian KIA in the Winter War were likely closer to 300k, and WIA were north of 900k. by western estimates. Overinflated, i should say > it was always Stalin's goal to annex Finland into the Karelo-Finnish SSR as a part of the Soviet Union Stalin's goal, about which nobody knew. Except Finns :D >There's a fair bit of evidence that Russia was preparing for another war against Finland in the fall of 1940 Strangely, nobody knows about said plans. Except Finns :D By the way, why USSR should have wanted another war with Finland? USSR had Hankoniemi and all the Karelian Isthmus, after all... Ah, yes, I forgot - "it was always Stalin's goal to annex Finland". Stupid me. >It is perhaps likely Finland would have eventually attacked anyway once Germany pushed deep enough into Russia, but that does not remove the fact Russia did attack first Really? So, Gebirgs-Korps Norwegen was just for fun? > like it had in 1918 Russia. Attacked Finland. In 1918. Am I forgetting something? > Ultimately Finnish troops remained in defensive positions all the way until July-August, 1941. *Sigh "Unternehmen Silberfuchs" - date beginning 29 June 1941 >Many of these areas btw had partially de facto joined or wanted to join Finland during the Russian Civil War, this is an open lie >The Finnish military was entirely capable of carrying out this operation, but chose not to Finnish military wasn't capable of any large offensive operations as of end of 1941. Especially at such large front >or even participate in the Siege of Leningrad Of course, Finland didn't participated in the siege of Leningrad. Finnish troops only formed part of the encircling ring >maintain that its war, unlike the German one, was defensive in nature Capturing some territories when USSR had his hands full with Germany - that's I call a defensive war :D You, Finns, are so charming when you try to make yourself good guys in aggressive war
    2
  83.  @itsVilu  >Japan was part of the Tripartite Pact so yes, they were part of the Axis but 'not 'true member', isn't it? Japan had neutrality pact with USSR until 1945
    2
  84. ​@Sami Sund >Russia was allies with Germany really? When? Show me some examples of 'allied actions' >and started the whole WWII with Germany something new. I don't remember USSR taking part in capturing Czechoslovakia >Did you know that? I'm not very well versed in history of your alternate reality
    2
  85. how so?
    2
  86.  @villesorjonen5779  how your country will loose without nazis?
    2
  87.  @villesorjonen5779  are you drunk or high?
    2
  88.  @villesorjonen5779  I know enough. But I really can't get any meaning from your words
    2
  89. >the permanent agresion and grabbing lands politics of russia from they small neighbors really? What you say about, for example, Finland grabbing lands politics from they big neighbor?
    2
  90.  @mariusvladu2041  remember Munchen my friend
    2
  91.  @mariusvladu2041  Munchen says that Russia wasn't in any way unique
    2
  92.  @mariusvladu2041  > You are right ! Is not a fact . Hitler-Stalin pact was just a reuniunion beween two old good school friends what dou you have to say about Munchen agreements, then?
    2
  93.  @SerAkel  naval operations such as mine laying are planned and prepared well ahead. So, finnish navy was ready for aggressive actions.
    2
  94.  @popsey72  "blocked and reported", huh ;)
    2
  95.  @bobbleheadelvis6607  Nope. I don't remember anything particularly bad coming to Finland after that and before June of 1941
    2
  96. ​@Sami Sund > countless of killed people As far as I remember, all Finns, killed during Winter War, ARE counted. And it's not that big of a number >lost lands, including second largest city of Finland vae victis. All of this could have been avoided > do i have to go on? Please, continue. Remind me anything particularly bad coming to Finland AFTER conclusion of the Winter War and BEFORE June of 1941
    2
  97.  @VIItut  you forgot to take your meds, pal
    2
  98.  @mabussubam512  >Is what you're saying in a nutshell. bullshit, I can't hear you
    2
  99. > What proof is there that Finland wasn't just preparing for a war that seemed inevitable Taking part in plans to capture Murmansk. Operation Silberfuchs >Why would we wait for the soviets to strike first Was USSR planning to strike Finland? Any signs? >Why not just wait it out and focus on the Germans? wait what? Finnish submarines laying mines in soviet coastal waters? Finnish navy providing bases for German minelayers? Finnish troops advancing at Murmansk alongside German troops?
    2
  100.  @readhistory2023  > since they actually spent the blood to take the ground Naval base and demolition of Mannerheim line >Do you have another take on it? I could only repeat, that Finland itself had no value
    2
  101.  @popsey72  >then truly the 125000 dead Soviet soldiers in the winter war died for nothing. they died to secure USSR borders. Simple as that >Actually what's the different between the human value in Stalins Soviet and Putins Russia. In both case its zero. actually, you know 0 about value of life in iStalins Soviet and Putins Russia. But, being a poor brainwashed zombie, you can not stop babbling about things you know nothing ;)
    2
  102.  @vaahtobileet  where did you get that bullshit?
    2
  103. >They were allied wich germans at the start of ww2 no, they weren't >Will that make soviets axis also? do you understand the depth of German-Finnish cooperation? Like, mixed units?
    2
  104.  @Anthus.  Yes. German people in wermacht uniform, living in military bases in Finland
    2
  105. > The PTRD antitank rifles took up overwatch firing positions during an infantry assault. When the MG-42's disclosed their positions, the PTRD's antitank rifles went to work firing in groups of threes at the MG-42's until they were silenced. Soviet 14,5 mm antitank rifles had really poor accuracy at long ranges. So, quite often it was the other way around
    2
  106. >no peace treaty had been written there was a peace treaty >And Finland did wait until the Soviets declared war against Finland. Meaning they had plans to do something against the Finns. Likely whether the Germans atatcked or not. ROFL. Do you think that German war preparations went unseen? In particular, German troops inside the Finnish territory. Same troops Molotov asked Hitler about >They just staged one, a legitimation for their attack. USSR didn't used Mainila as a legitimization
    2
  107.  @QuizmasterLaw  >USSR was a co-belligerent with the USA against Germany, but was not in an alliance and was not formally obligated to attack Japan for example. again, Japan, for example, didn't attacked USSR in 1941, as ally should do.
    2
  108. NKVD troops weren't political fanatics. They were internal troops
    2
  109.  @adrianshephard378  >an operation to cut off supply lines doesn't count really? Tell me moar >if they wanted to extend their borders why didnt they just help germany take Leningrad? because germany didn't wanted to take Leningrad?
    2
  110. and what USA could've do in that case?
    2
  111.  @rodafowa1279  did they invade Sweden? LOL at your 'objection'
    2
  112.  @BimBam69526  if we are talking about Winter War, then Finland was forced to accept the conditions, which were unacceptable before the war and led USSR ti fight Finland.
    2
  113.  @BimBam69526  because USSR didn't want to annex Finland?
    2
  114. >the Germans had superior tactics nope >weapons in some places, yes >They were beat by shear numbers nope >Add to that Hitler's insane control of the tactics again, old story about "Stupid Hitler and intelligent German generals" You stuck in the Cold War, man, get some education. Start with Glantz
    2
  115.  @JackKrei  >They work with all documents Provide proof, please. > you, like all the soviet period folks are incapable of understanding facts and reality due to years of brainwashing. I'm not 'soviet period folk'. As I said earlier - you so incompetent you even incapable to understand that
    2
  116. UK and US generally didn't give a shit about Finland at the time
    2
  117. Combined fiinish-german units - "not axis". Of course!
    2
  118. you forgot option №3 - stay neutral >Specially 1942 was tough year for us yes, but Ryti didn't know that in 1940 when he sided with Germany
    2
  119.  @okphalmer6596  Hankoniemi could've just change hands, if Germans decided to capture it. It's not like any Finn lived there at the moment. What it has to do with neutrality?
    2
  120. ROFL. You are funny guy
    2
  121.  @Jokakutihut1  no, only funny ones. Good for my written English
    2
  122.  @vilzupuupaa4680  >How about the support the red finnish army during the finnish civil war, the first negative contact between the two nations. finnish Red Guard was a part of the finnish nation so idk why do you call it a "negative contact"
    2
  123. :D
    2
  124. Finland belongs to Sweden!
    2
  125. >aka Soviet captured Vyborg by storm so, there wasn't assault and street fights in Vyborg. Good, good
    2
  126. ​ @popsey72  >What troops would man the KaUR? troops that were manned it when Finns came knocking. You didn't know that fights there continued until November 1941? > And there where no reinforcement to get. when did you even get that idea? >And could you provide sources for your claims other than feverish Soviet brain? Real sources? Yes, I could, but obviously you can't read Russian. So, David Glantz books on the siege of the Leningrad should be enough for you >The troops intended where just destroyed north of the city. You see, they weren't 'destroyed', it's not computer game. They suffered huge losses, they retreated, they were reinforced and then THEY MANNED KaUR FORTIFICATIONS. Simple as that.
    2
  127. ​ @WandererRTF  >in the first few days of September 1941 there were no organized Soviet forces in the KaUR sorry, I don't understand what that means. If my memory serves me, fights for Noviy Beloostrov fortifications started in September 3. >And the some of the Soviet forces were really destroyed in the Isthmus. units from those 'destroyed' forces later reinforced various parts of the Leningrad defense, so I don't understand what 'destroyed' means, too
    2
  128. Redfox161616 >Stalin killed close to 40-50 million close to 40-50 trillions. The latest research show that
    2
  129. Finland willingly made a deal with the devil
    2
  130.  @horatio8213  Finland wasn't neutral before Barbarossa, you said it yourself. So it ends here
    2
  131. ​ @horatio8213  stop making things up
    2
  132. >USSR invaded Finland when it was allied with Germany. USSR wasn't allied with Germany. Non-aggression pact is quite different thing >As Germany defeated France and occupied it, Finland had to pick either Germany or USSR Finland had to pick nothing. Unless Finland elite wanted some part in German "acquisitions" >If Finland did not pick a side, the war would have been fought over Finland from the start strangely, nobody "fought over" Switzerland or Sweden
    2
  133.  @teemuvesala9575  >Very easy to debunk your commie propaganda. why you failed at that, then? >They even drew lines of influence over eastern Europe between themselves it may surprise you, but drawing the lines don't make allies. Most likely you do not know about so-called "Treaty of Tordesillas", when Portuguese Empire and the Spanish Empire divided the newly-discovered lands outside Europe between them. Were they allies? No, quite the opposite. >USSR invaded Poland as an ally of Germany nope. The USSR pursued its own goals. Like Poland, which annexed Zaolzie a year ago during Sudeten Crisis >If Finland stayed neutral, eventually USSR would have invaded Finland again like they already did in Winter War. because you say so? >Sweden allowed Germany to move their troops across Swedish lands, that's why it wasn't invaded you uneducated Russian. I don't remember Sweden being attacked for that. So, what makes Finland different? >Finland only wanted back what the Russians stole from them in Winter War. Hence, alliance with Germany was the only reasonable choice So, no more "Finland had to pick", it's "Finland wanted Karelian Istmus(and some more)". I'm glad you honestly admitted it. >because Sweden allowed German troops to move through Sweden and supplied Germany with iron ore... so, what exactly prevented Finland from allowing German troops to move through and to supply Germany with nickel? >Invading Switzerland is very costly due to the terrain... and Finland terrain is particularly favorable for invasion? I thought German army experienced great difficulties fighting in North. Perhaps I was wrong? >And since the Swiss played nice with both allies and axis, they had little reason to. so, what prevented Finland from doing likewise? Except ambitions for having all Karelia, of course
    2
  134.  @teemuvesala9575  > I failed at nothing Really? You said it was easy to debunk my "commie propaganda", but you ended up confirming that Finland wanted some territories of USSR and allied with Germany for that reason. > at the time anyway so there was just 2 options; USSR or Germany or third option - stay neural >You're telling me Finland should have just supplied Germany with nickel and not sided with them in the war? yep >Germany would have attacked through Finland into USSR whether with Finland as their ally or simply forcefully moved through Finland so what? >the war could have been fought over Finland while Finland would have just stood by and watch... I think many of the Finns killed during Continuation War would choose this option. I think you overestimate Germany, though. Their forces in in offensive operations in the north numbered around 40000 troops. Finland was a substantial help to their war efforts in the North of USSR >The only logical conclusion was for Finland to ally with Germany, because allying with USSR who had just stolen 1/3 of Finnish land area was out of question. As I said earlier, I am glad that you honestly admitted that the ruling elites of Finland wanted to seize Karelia and it was not a matter of choosing sides >Now go back to kiss Putin's feet clown. **yawns* You should try better to impress me
    2
  135. ​ @raceris7309  >It looks like you're trying to put as much dirt on Lithuania as possible Maybe it looks like that to you, because you are Lithuanian. I really do not differentiate between Baltic states in that case, they all had they share of atrocities committed. >Coincidentally, I don't know a single story about minorities getting harrased by Lithuanians maybe you didn't looked good enough? >On the other hand, it tells us that Jews were the most respected minority out of others. Sorry, I lost you. What exactly tells us that Jews were the most respected minority out of others? >Do you really expect them to have a positive opinion on USSR after such event happened? Again, I lost you. How USSR was connected to mass killing of Jews in Lithuania, which began even before Germans took over?
    2
  136.  @jaroslavkotov910  holy shit. Nicolas doesn’t know his arse from his elbow when it comes to the firearms. In fact, soviet engineers failed to create general purpose machine gun before and during the war, not for the lack of trying
    2
  137. >Soviet paid communists were up to all kind of agitations and mischief all around Finland. what? All communists in Finland were jailed, dead or expelled since 1930's
    2
  138. Ann Onymous >ALL of Russia's neighbors HATE Russia. Fact. some delirious bullshit, lol
    2
  139.  @QuizmasterLaw  >Hitler's co-belligerent in what way? >which invaded Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania weren't invaded. Do your homework
    2
  140. >Finns get their ass kicked six ways from sunday Mannerheim: SHEEEEEEEIIIIIIITTTTT
    2
  141.  @kallekonttinen1738  >How is that different? I really don't see how seizing a dedicated part of Poland after government fled could be compared with Finnish-German military cooperation
    2
  142. they wanted to take some more
    2
  143. >Australians with lee enfields and the odd Owen guns , Brens and Vickers MGs mowed down Chinese and north Koreans in korea so, that's why UN troops were forced to retreat? Because they were superior? :D
    2
  144. >I repeat the idea of mass industrialization was first purposed by Trotsky,Stalin himself did not invent it. I think, idea of mass industrialization of Russia belongs to some man in Russian Empire in the early 1900-s. Or earlier. It isn't rocket science. >Stalin purged people in his own party because of just his paranoia how do you know that? >he signed a non aggresion pact with Hitler thinking he will be the first one to strike again - how do you know his thoughts? >If not a criminal he was definetly a idiot to say the least. idiot aren't capable of making his country a world superpower >With Trotsky in power USSR would have not even fight a war with Hitler,as Germany would've been USSRs ally long before 1940s. LOL. Hitler's Germany? With Lebensraum ? You are a mighty wishful thinker, dear sir :D
    2
  145. >Because if we didnt... There's a very good chance that my native language these days would be russian, not finnish. Is there?
    2
  146.  @niki75  > Had the USSR attacked us again were there any signs?
    2
  147.  @adrianshephard378  >and Nazi germany supported them with naval power in the winter war wat?
    2
  148. about 1,6. Not much, really
    2
  149. ​ @popsey72  >So the Soviet 23 Army had nothing to throw in the KaRU defensive line north of Leningrad. there were more armies >If Finland wanted Leningrad the could have taken it then. facepalm. Do you think, that capturing city with millions of people living in is equal to fighting 3 infantry divisions? After summer offensive Finn's had nor people nor other means to capture Leningrad. They were exhausted.
    2
  150. ​ @popsey72  >And no, you should not believe your own propaganda so much. Finland had only sufferd minor casualties it's a Finnish propaganda tells me, that Finland has no men to continue offensive at the same pace >Soviet had no troops to send in beginning of Septemper 1941 do you know something about Leningrad People's Militia Army? >This even Russian historians of to day admits "Russian historians" is a very large category of people, with different views. Some of them say complete bullshit >He and another soldier was advanced guard of his battalion, when they ran in to a Soviet fortified position. After one shot was fired a whole Soviet company surrendered without a fight to my grandpa and his mate. There is an old Prussian proverb - "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election" >You probably won't read this in your book either. I read quite a few such stories. Some of them were true.
    2
  151. > Finland had 2 choices either be occupied by the Sovjets or get help from the only power able to provide it. third choise - stay neutral. >In 41 the Sovjets bomb Finland before any other hostilities take place 22 June fiinnish troops captured Aland islands, finnish submarines placed mines in soviet coastal waters. >So yes they cooperated with the Germans to regain lost territory regain lost territory like Petrozawodsk? Remind me, please, when it was lost by Finland
    2
  152.  @hopeinen5287  Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal - they all stayed neutral.
    2
  153. >Attack or be invaded. Period. stay neutral. Period. >The fact that the Finns refused to participate in the siege of Leningrad is illustrative. but they participated. Passively. They had almost no means to do that actively >Ultimately that choice turned out to be correct, as evidenced by the fact that Finland emerged from the war as a still-independant nation facepalm. You think that dead Hitler not allowed USSR to capture Finland?
    2
  154.  @SinOfAugust  Finland managed to stay neutral and anticommunist from 1940 to 1941. What were you saying about "to be annexed"? >Tell Poland, and Baltic states about how neutrality worked out for them. They weren't neutral. As a matter of fact, Poland was actively hostile towards Germany. Do your homework, please.
    2
  155.  @nikolaangelov3583  in 1944 Stalin had what he got in 1940. It was enough to consider Finland 'not dangerous' . And Finland itself is of no value.
    2
  156.  @nikolaangelov3583  who says Stalin wanted Finland in 1939? Finns? > Also, Finland was in the Axis, so why not use this excuse to steamroll the tanks to Helsinki? Because Finland itself is of no value
    2
  157. ​ @jm-holm  >Wrong, the sphere's of influence were territories to be occupied. where I can read something on that? >Everything that was called a "sphere of influence" in the pact WAS invaded and occupied by these 2 powers, except for Finland that managed to hold on. Your memory serves you bad. Finland didn't managed to hold on. >Already answered spheres of influence. Simply a term for territory to take by force and annex. or not >Everybody. The entire world. some confirmations to that statement? >Incorrect, there was no German presence by the time the Soviets asked Maybe you should read it yourself then? Molotov expressed concerns about German presence in Finland, and Hitler told him that such presence shouldn't concern USSR
    2
  158. ​ @jm-holm  >Oh I'd suggest for example books on "history" "books on history' isn't enough, you know. Maybe, books of some particular author? >Oh yes it did. Some alternative history you are talking about >If Finland hadn't held on we would have been part of the USSR, that contradicts historical reality >Or yes confirmations? >refer to history it's quite a vague direction. Could you be more specific? >I've read a lot on the subject, don't you worry. but you don't really know what Hitler discussed with Molotov... Somehow I'm starting to doubt your words... >I find it sad. Don't be. It's funny to catch your little lies here and there ;)
    2
  159. ​ @agris8859  I have read these excuses many times. It doesn't change the fact, that only reasons for Finland to engage in war alongside Germany were revenge and territorial gains
    2
  160. ​ @agris8859  >And it wasn't really ''gaining territory'' it was mostly ''gaining back territory lost in the winter war and before''. maybe for people of Finland. Not for Ryti and his colleagues >but it could have been avoided by the Soviet Union if they had not been greedy and initiated the Winter War a few years prior Winter War wasn't for greed. It was for security of the state borders. And Soviet Union tried to avoid war. Negotiations about moving of the border and lease of territory to build naval base longed for two months
    2
  161.  @agris8859  >Don't agree with me ? yep >Soldiers and civilians flood in>Soldiers in civilian clothing go out to demonstrate for joining the USSR that's quite an alternative history. Also -you suggest that soviet soldiers would go and demonstrate in finnish language?
    2
  162. > it was also a reality that the Soviets would have Attacked Finland again eventually Old west Germans love to say something among those lines - "we were forced, Soviet Union was ready to attack us". I see a trend here
    2
  163. ​ @wardeni4806  >Their original plan was to annex the entirety of Finland you are mixing things up. Not 'annex Finland', but 'to destroy Finland' military might'. There is no 'original plan to annex the entirety of Finland' >They had 321,000–381,000 casualties they had not >After it was over the relations between Finland and the USSR only worsened, which resulted in the Continuation Wa nope. Continuation War was result of opportunity to seize some lands while USSR had his hands full. >which is named so because it was a continuation of the Winter War. yes, by the Finns. Because, you see, it looks wrong when you say 'we helped Hitler to fight his war against Soviet Union because we saw profit in that'. But it looks good when you say that "it was just a continuation of winter War, nothing more" >The USSR invaded/occupied just about every nation in eastern Europe in their bid to outplay the U.S. invaded? You calling liberation from German troops an 'invasion'? that's a interesting logic you have >and would have done the same to Finland. are there some evidences to that?
    2
  164. > I have not heard any historian or a Finn call Continuation War defensive war. you find plenty of Finns(judging by their names) calling Continuation War a 'defensive war' here, in the comments >If Finns were really allies of Germany then there should have been no reason why Finns wouldnt aid Germans in Leningrad and Murmansk-railroad activities flawed logic. You didn't account for Finland's limited war capabilities. And, for example, Japan, which was the undisputed ally of Germany, didn't fight the USSR at all.
    2
  165.  @samuelsilver8077  >Japan didnt see any military value freezing their troops in Siberia for no good reason they did see military value in 1938-1939, though, fighting against Soviet Union in Mongolia >But USSR wasnt attacking them so there wasnt really any need to attack USSR they were members of Tripartite Pact. USSR didn't attack Italy or Slovakia, but they send their troops into USSR nonetheless
    2
  166. >It was the American and British bombing campaign that crippled the German manufacturing capabilities that saved the Soviets really? Then why Germans produced MORE in 1943-1944, than in 1941-1942?
    2
  167.  @stinkypete891  destroyed Luftwaffe but not manufacturing capabilities of the Germany
    2
  168.  @stinkypete891  and?
    2
  169.  @stinkypete891  nope. Swedes won WWII. They sold ball bearings to Allies
    2
  170.  @stinkypete891  What about swedes selling ball bearing to the Allies? They won the war, isn't it?
    2
  171.  @stinkypete891  >Swedes were importing ball bearings to both Britain and Germany. so, they won the war, right?
    2
  172.  @stinkypete891  >America was fighting a two-front war thousands of miles apart with Imperial Japan who's navy crushed you at the Battle of Tsushima, RIGHT??? nope >Soviets couldn't even defeat Germany WITHOUT America's help US couldn't defeat Germany without Sweden help. RIGHT???
    2
  173.  @stinkypete891  Nope. Cause Finland didn't sell anything to USSR. Or leased anything
    2
  174.  @stinkypete891  >RIGHT??? that's a stories from alternate universe. In our universe, though, Finland didn't sell or lease anything to USSR, ergo - Finland didn't won the war. According to your own logic
    2
  175.  @stinkypete891  nope. It's in your universe. One of them, at least
    2
  176.  @stinkypete891  >nope. You're universe and your universe only. not mine. You don't know things that were going on in my universe ;)
    2
  177.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings, man. Ball bearings
    2
  178.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings, man. They saved all. You stated that yourself
    2
  179.  @stinkypete891  hence. Sweden won the war. It's your logic, not mine
    2
  180.  @stinkypete891  Ball bearings, man. Remember - ball bearings. Sweden win the war, you stated that yourself
    2
  181.  @stinkypete891  > America won the war, saved Russia and the entire world. Sweden won the war, saved US, Britain and Russia and entire world. All the allies did was purchase ball bearings. Right???
    2
  182.  @stinkypete891  Sweden won the war, saved US, Britain and Russia and entire world. All the allies did was purchase ball bearings. Right???
    2
  183.  @stinkypete891  >Sweden sold ball bearings to Britain and Germany. Yes, you are right. Sweden won the war. You said that, not me
    2
  184.  @stinkypete891  you said Sweden won the war. Because they sold ball bearing to Allies. It's your logic man not mine
    2
  185.  @stinkypete891  you said you saved USSR because of land-lease. Hence, Sweden sawed all because of ball bearings
    2
  186.  @stinkypete891  >The only thing Sweden saved was it's own bank accounts and Allies. Because ball bearings were important
    2
  187.  @tonks-gaming  'orders'? What about 'preparations'?
    2
  188.  @TheWersum  AFAIR, Germans didn't placed Russians in concentration camps indiscriminately. Not like you know who
    2
  189.  @Leperzco  > Before that not Finnish or German troops based on Finland have not crossed the Soviet-Finnish border or any way waged war to Soviet Union. rofl. So, they were some neutral german soldiers, completely separated from Nazi Germany? >As it was agreed on Finnish-German negotiations that German troops only assist Finnish troops on that case that Soviet Union starts war with Finland. ROFL[2]. They were planning attack on Soviet Union, in unison with Barbarossa.
    2
  190. there is no 'Siberian' ethnicity :D People born and living in Siberia are called Siberians, whether they are Russians, Ukrainians, Poles or Buryats
    2
  191. >more than likely they would prefer to live under Finish rule than under Russian rule. cool story, bro
    2
  192. +Great Jamie He distinguished himself as a politician, not as a general
    1
  193. +Great Jamie what 'brilliant tactics' do you mean?
    1
  194.  @jounisuninen  oh, stop that nonsense with "Finland army stopped on the old border"
    1
  195. +Michael McCabe >Those who have actually lived under communism will all attest to that. Finnish 'reds' weren't communist, nor bolshevik's
    1
  196. +Michael McCabe >The reds always considered themselves to be socialists and communists nope, lol. >You're effectively calling them liars. nope, i calling you a liar. We didn't talk about communists. We were talking about 'reds'
    1
  197. jeffrey dahmere >but on all of those cases that I mentioned above they were breaking those agreement how do you checked that? Read materials of field investigations? Remind me, what form of warfare conducted inhabitants of Oradour-sur-Glane? >hostages that were hiding and protecting partisan nope. Just hostages. >if you don't want to get involved it was simple don't help those terrorists/partisans/resistance save me from this bullshit, please. Nobody checked, who was helping partisans, and who not.
    1
  198. jeffrey dahmere >I can see that scene so, we are agree, that Germans killed civilians on principles of collective responsibility? Then, what the point of you talking about 'they killed only partisan supporters', when you denying your own words >thats right Oradour-sur-Glane they were hiding weapons and helping the resistance ,thats why the germans retaliated "collective responsibility" > thats what the germans did yep. Indiscriminately killed civilians, on the official orders. So, why are you talked about cases of misconduct on both sides? In the German case, misconduct - it's when German soldier refuses to execute civilian hostage
    1
  199. it's like a being in a bar and you saw that big gay, who hit you once in the past is in the fight with other big guy. So, when you saw that, you tried to quickly rob first guy and then look what happens next
    1
  200.  @mattegunnar  >and he still got that deal to kill you off nope, he just hit you in the face and you parted your ways > because fuck that guy, he is and asshole maybe, but then he gets his hands free and now he is really pissed off with your attitude. And now you think 'maybe I shouldn't rob him in the first place?'
    1
  201.    > All of this was about teritorial demands they were quite moderate. Lot less than USSR got in the aftermath. Btw, USSR didn't just demanded territories from Finland, it proposed some territories that Finland wanted in exchange.So, no ''considered Finland as a problem of former Tsardom and wanted it back" >Mannerheim urged the government as finnish army was in desperate condition. and because those demands could be fulfilled. The only point of contention was the lease of territory for military base. That could have been negotiated, but I guess that people in power thought at the time that USSR wouldn't go to a war
    1
  202.  @coloradoing9172  first one - nobody asked Finland to give up the all Mannerheim line. Second one - I don't remember soviet troops invading Finland from Hanko during 1941. I wonder why
    1
  203.  @coloradoing9172  so, you ignored that part where I talked that there were NO advances from Hanko during 1941. Despite it's presumed 'danger to Helsinki' As for "portion that would have been rendered the entire line useless" - that's some first class conspiracy theory, I presume taken straight outta Finland. Any sane man, familiar with the USSR's plans for the Winter War knows that Soviet military commanders did not consider the Mannerheim Line an obstacle
    1
  204.  @coloradoing9172  >The red army in 1941 was in a state of complete collapse and had no capacity to commit offensive operations in Finland. well, It's called pulling the facts to fit your point of view. >The sad thing is that you're falling for Soviet propaganda from the late 30s LOL. Man with conspiracy theories about 'rendering Mannerheim Line useless' tells me that I fall for propaganda. What words in the sentence "Soviet military leaders did not view the Mannerheim Line as an obstacle" you didn't understand?
    1
  205.  @KBKriechbaum  >You can drop 20 rocks on a watch and claim that your technologically inferior rocks beat the technologically superior watch. what it has to do with german superiority? > Just with massive support did the soviets actually manage to get things going. like in the end of 1941, yes :D Massive support >Their losses speak a very clear language. about German superiority, yes >The finnish beat them up with way less manpower but way superior fighting capabilities. You talking about 1939-1940, yes? You will be surprised, but Soviet Army at the front was equivalent to the Finland army in terms of manpower > In WW2 it took the russians over 3 years to learn how a modern war is fought you falling into the trap of the "Great German fighters vs inferior Soviet fighters". But in fact it was "Great German industry vs inferior Soviet industry". So, it took russians over 3 years to build up industry more or less equal to German(in some areas) > The british fought immediatly and managed because their airforce and leadership was excellent. LOLWUT? You talking about guys who lost ALL their heavy weapons during Fall Rot, and only thing that saved Britain from falling was a 30 km wide anti-tank trench >Saying the Soviets were a good fighting force is ridiculous when you look at their losses. look at their enemies >They won through nothing but manpower. manpower solves nothing since invention of the machinegun, quick firing guns and shrapnel
    1
  206. ​ @KBKriechbaum  >The example with the rocks is merely to show that "winning" is relative and does not say much about fighting capabilities. then you failed to provide correct example >The russians never fought very smart. that's bullshit >Their doctrines never were very smart compared to their adversaries, either. you really don't know anything about russian military doctrine, so your opinion is irrelevant > They were very inefficient as a military they beat stronger enemy, though > hence massive losses even when massively outgunning and outnumbering their enemy like when? >The losses sustained by the soviets are due to inferior military tactics and poor training. the losses sustained by soviets are due German superiority in weapons and transport > But on the tactical level, the german military was just more advanced. that's just words. You don't understand their meaning > In the international comparison, even today russia lacks those on a grand scale. but you don't have an idea, what today Russia lacks or not ;) You just repeat the words you heard somewhere, not understanding their meaning >In the end of 1941, winter stopped the ill equiped germans. ROFL. What about ill equipped soviets? >Even without the red army being there, it would stop them. LOL. You are so funny >In the winterwar, the soviets had roughly twice the men in the fight, 100 times the aircraft and 30 times the tanks. as I said already - Red army was equal with the finns on the terms of manpower > The soviet casualties are 20 times as high as the finnish casualties. 390000 / 20 gives us 19000, not 70000. What's your major malfunction? > thats why you need 10 times more soviets in a fight against the Wehrmacht. Facts in numbers. explain then, why Wermacht win only when it concentrated 10 to 1 against soviet soldiers? > Industry has little to do with how good your individual already equipped force is in terms of training. really? ROFL. You so clueless. Try to think, how do you equip your force without industry? Where you get that fuels, ammo, food? Where you get that shells for your 280mm howitzers, bombs for your Ju 87? >The british fought the german luftwaffe at its prime and managed to fight them off. the british fought german wermacht at its prime and managed to loose badly. Unfortunately, USSR had no 30km wide anti-tank trench You stuck in the times of Cold War, pal. Try to educate yourself, start with Glantz books
    1
  207.  @KBKriechbaum  > Haha, you are so smart Only in comparison with you >the US shoved equipment up soviet russias booty not so much as they showed up Britain booty. Remember, what Germans did to Britain and US troops in Africa? >stalin himself said that they were on the brink of collapse and without the help of the US they would have he didn't said that. After all, where did you get that, obviously your Cold War era historical books don't cite Stalin quotes >Whenever russia tried something, afterwards they were worse of than before that's another bullshit >Russia to this day, is only a big gas station with very cheap prices. that's all you have to say about WW2? Very deep analysis, indeed. >The US fought the germans, too. The brits fought the germans too. Their kill/loss rates are a lot better. Because they had better militaries (and still have). obviously not because they waited until Germany bleeds their army on the Eastern front. No sir! > Looking forward to see how it goes for great russia in the future. Obviously you don't look into anything. You just miserable little man who thought he knew something about the history of World War II and now he is trying to hide his bitterness behind attempts to laugh at modern Russia. Attempts as miserable as he himself. Cheers
    1
  208. ​ @spudrobera4099  >You can believe the latter. I will believe in "The Plans". When I see them. After all, we got secret appendix to the Pact, didn't we? >n 1918, Bolsheviks did intrude into Finland to support the Finnish Reds. When i see words "Russia invaded Finland" I think about one country invading another. >There is something called the East Karelian uprising of 1921–22 and The Republic of North Ingria. If you really know, what it was, you can't, in your right mind, say that "Many of these areas btw had partially de facto joined or wanted to join Finland during the Russian Civil War" >About Finland choosing not to further carry out offensive operations, for example the Operation Silver Fox: which ended in 1941. As I said, Finnish military wasn't capable of any large offensive operations as of end of 1941. >Finnish troops only formed part of the encircling ring as that was the Finnish border. Facepalm. I think, you should change your name to "Some Dumb Guy". Finnish troops moved so far beyond the old border as Soviet fortifications allowed them
    1
  209. ​ @spudrobera4099  >But on actions that they took, which also contests such, the deep advance into Finland do you suggest that USSR captured Mannerheim line, Hankoniemi and then just stood and wait while finnish artillery shelled them? I'm seriously suggest to you to change nickname. "Some Dumb Guy". The only means to assure further peace was destroying Finnish military. For Finns just the threat of such destruction was enough >Also, USSR did not merely demand strategic areas, but for example demanded Finland do demolish possible fortifications along the eastern border. it wasn't in the final draft >One of the main reasons Finland declined nope >There were absolutely no intentions amongst them of joining Finland? you got some problems reading simple text, I got it. I repeat it for you. "Many of these areas btw had partially de facto joined or wanted to join Finland during the Russian Civil War" - that's an open lie. There was nothing about ''some intentions'. > however, Finnish troops had already earlier in August 1941 received orders to halt the advance after reaching their goals strangely, Finnish commanders 'on the spot' described it somewhat like 'we had no people to advance' >Mannerheim terminated the offensive on 31 August 1941, when the army had reached the 1939 border. again you repeat that. Do you think that repeating "finnish troops only got as far as old border" somehow changes historical reality?
    1
  210. ​ @spudrobera4099  >Meant, for example, the 163rd Rifle Division which was halfway on its route to Oulu "The only means to assure further peace was destroying Finnish military. For Finns just the threat of such destruction was enough". Next time, try to read what I wrote. >What comes to the areas wanting or not wanting to join Finland: as I said earlier - if you know, what it really was, you can't, in your right mind, say that ""Many of these areas btw had partially de facto joined or wanted to join Finland during the Russian Civil War"" >Such demands is stated in the sources of Wiki. yes >Do you have a raw copy of the final draft yourself to link? it was in the memoirs of the diplomats. The final proposition from USSR was base at Hankoniemi and partial movement of the border >Who and when was this "Finnish commander"? I will remember that colonel name >described it somewhat like" seems like very sound evidence. indeed >thus straightening the frontline so that it ran along the old border "ran along"? Interesting game of words. Please, stop make yourself an idiot, I couldn't stand that
    1
  211.  @spudrobera4099  >The absolute refusal or absence of requested sources. pardon me, you didn't provided any sources of your own. Statements from Wikipedia didn't provide any base for conclusions you did
    1
  212. ​ @spudrobera4099  >You can request a source and I will confirm or back it up yes, I request your sources on points as 1) USSR planning to annex all Finland(plans to advance to Sweden border coudn't be counted as plans to annex), 2) most of the population of Karelia wanted to be part of Finland, 3) finnish troops staying on old border at Karelian Isthmus > If you don't remember a name or so, you should not use it as an argument why shouldn't I? You could remember that man yourself. It's not like Finland had many colonels at the time and at the place
    1
  213. TiK is not Russian
    1
  214.  @marcinterlecki6021  why teach him how to pronounce word in russian, then?
    1
  215.  @marcinterlecki6021  > it's an acronym and Sh is for surname Shpagin Acronym from the Russian surname. Lewis, being an englishman, understandably having a hard time pronouncing russian letters > BTW it's weird that Russian has any objections i'm not a 'pronouncing nazi', and I am very annoyed by people who floods comment section with "It's not S-H, it's Sh" etc
    1
  216. > Nazis became "evil demons" only after ww2 lolwut? They captured half of the Europe. You think that other nations saw them as nice guys in the moment?
    1
  217.  @lexbor3511  >they were just another conquerors for the public. nope >Like French under Napoleon. like germans in WW1. They were called "hunns", remember? > siding with Nazis was not a big deal during the war. I call bullshit
    1
  218.  @lexbor3511  >You can call whatever u want but public in those days was different (surprise). sorry, but name "hunns" was coined by "public of those days" > Thats why prime-minister of GB had no problem meeting with Hitler during the war? i highly doubt that > thats why pro-nazi parties were openly operating in every democratic country nope. Pro-nazi (in fact, right-wing, fascist parties) openly operated in democratic countries because people felt that strong anticommunist state united under strong leader is a right way to be saved from the perils of the modern world. Rising of nazis to the power in Germany was part of that world movement >thats why Stalin had no problem signing a pact with Hitler.. Stalin had all the problems signing pact with Hitler. Most likely you don't know that, but USSR cut ties with Germany when Hitler became Chancellor. >Other-wise Finland would never align her-self with Hitler. Finland had quite a grudge against USSR
    1
  219.  @jarskil8862  do you understand what 'Alliance' means? >So with your logic, "No one in Europe saw USSR as good guys" it's not 'my' logic. It's the way world governments saw USSR those days and why Nazy Germany was the main trade partner of the USSR just before the war
    1
  220. > The only semi/full automatic rifle with a high powered rifle round in WW2 was the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). Garand M1, FG-42, Gewehr-41 and Gewehr-43, SVT-40/AVT-40
    1
  221.  @Crashed131963  >But the AVT used a lower powered short 7.62mm x 39mm or 7.62x41mm not a true 7.62x54mm round. I was talking about AVT-40, which was an SVT-40 with autofire capabilitiy. You were talking about rifle that was developed to complement assault rifle. Tokarev's rifle lose to Simonov's SKS
    1
  222. ​@Sami Sund >Russians don't even belong to these parts of the world really? AFAIR, People in West-Northern Russia have quite a share of "finnish" genes >go back to Black Sea what Russians has to do with Black Sea?
    1
  223.  @mariusvladu2041  >but the real event who realy start WWII was Ribentrop=Molotov pact o'rly? Did chinese and japanese agree on that?
    1
  224.  @mariusvladu2041  >Of curse Russia signed a kind of so call "Non Agression Pact" like Ribentrop-Molotov pact with Japan too . That allowed Japan to still attack China if memory serves, Japan attacked China long before non-agression pact with Russia. Check your facts
    1
  225.  @mariusvladu2041  >Of course they attacked earlier but that pact help them a lot So, you ignore the facts :D
    1
  226.  @mariusvladu2041  >The main fact is that Stalin=Hitler pact really ignited the WWII, nope. you want that to be an fact, but it isn't
    1
  227.  @mariusvladu2041  >A smaller Ribentrop-Molotov pact, so, Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact isn't a sole reason for the beginning of WW2? >why USSR (if was such a ...peace lover) had attacked Poland together with Germany and grabb half of it ?? to prevent Germany from getting close to USSR borders >Why USSR attacked Finland and grabb land ? to prevent other lands from using Finland to attack USSR >Why USSR grabb Baltic states ? to prevent Germany from getting close to USSR borders >Why USSR grab Basarabia from Romania ? because Romania grabbed it from Russia
    1
  228.  @mariusvladu2041  >In fact Russia grabb Basarabia in 1812 . Romania did not existed in 1812 >All yours answers are in line with perpetual imperialistic russian polycy all my answers are in line with facts >This is the real proof that they did not belonged to Russia . nope. It proofs only that their leaders want to be leaders of the state, not of some Russian region >By the way , even Belarus did not want anymore to join Russia in a.... single country not 'Belarus'. Alexander Lukashenko says so. Because he wants to be a sovereign leader >That dictator, Putin who want to restore USSR is a bloody psychopath ! you forgot to take your meds, pal
    1
  229.  @mariusvladu2041  nope
    1
  230.  @mariusvladu2041  >Then Russia should not invaded those countryes ever why? >Invading and grabbing land is not a long term solution to have friends it works for USA and France >Unfortunately even today Vladimir Putin way of thinking is a czaristo-soviet ones . ROFL. You live in illusion >Is very hard to understand the appetit of today Russia to still grabb lands ! Tell me - if you get your legs and arms cut off, do you want them to be sewn back or leave it as it is?
    1
  231. they had their 75mm antitank guns. And their 88mm antitank guns(not anti-aircraft). And Tigers. And Panthers
    1
  232.  @kirgan1000  what it has to do with anti tank defense?
    1
  233.  @kirgan1000  don't know anything about "suffering". As far as I know, almost until the end of war in general German artillery could fire more heavy shells than Soviet
    1
  234. billions of people. Communists(Russians) killed billions of people. That's common knowledge
    1
  235.  @vascotank5033  >only fought on the Eastern Front, no secriuty duties or bandit hunting lolwut? Schutzmannschaft batallions weren't army troops. They were the forces, assigned to hunt 'bandits' and perform 'security' duties. What "Eastern Front fighting" they did in Belorussia in 1942? Cease that bullshit, please >can you explain more on how it doesn't look like they where forced? They had a choice. Military service or labor
    1
  236.  @crabyman3555  >if you were in their place you would swear allegiance to Hitler too. i'm not that predisposed to killing Jews, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians and getting paid for that
    1
  237.  @vascotank5033  >I didn't say only the eastern front at all, "ONLY fought on the Eastern Front" -you wrote that > also it being a schuma battlion dosen't mean they where made to do anti-partsian work yep. They could be made to support Einsatzgruppe (and they were made) > but even still in such operations, they where placed in inactive sectors O'rly? If memory serves me, they got they share of KIA in Belorussia
    1
  238.  @vascotank5033  >for the 16th,18th,19th,21st,24th and 26th Schutzmannschaft batallions. you said that they only fought on the Eastern Front > i didn't say for all only those battlions really? Quite a short memory you have. "most of the other 20 or so Schutzmannschaft batallions too only fought on the eastern front" - that's your words  >also i didn't captlized the whole word only at all. I personally capitalized that word. To emphasize that you wrote that said battalions only fought on the Eastern Front and didn't participated in police duties >you didn't specifie that you where talking about that, so thats on you not me. I talked about bullshit you wrote in your first comment, so that's on you not me
    1
  239. There was quite a peaceful outcome out of Winter war
    1
  240.  @arvopohja7693  >Whole period was constant aggressive violence towards finland. anything particularly bad? > huge amount for small nation 25 thousands? Really?
    1
  241. ​ @tonks-gaming  >How is this relevant? it was planned before Barbarossa started >In my opinion the USSR striking Finland is a quite clear sign that they were planning on striking Finland. USSR striking Finland was a reaction to capturing Aland islands and alleged military cooperation between Finland and Germany. Military cooperation that was indeed real >All of that happened after the war had already started. 1) war wasn't declared until 25. Those things happened before 25, some of them - before 22 2) you can't send minelayers on a whim, you should plan operation long before
    1
  242.  Mauri Mela  > wikipedia at least. It's obvious that he has no slight of information on the topic
    1
  243.  @watgaming9479  Soviet Union also had naval base in Finland - and look what happened to them
    1
  244.  @ohhibob1006  and you know it from?
    1
  245.  @ohhibob1006  how are they related to Finland?
    1
  246.  @vaahtobileet  i'm talking about the fact that USSR didn't demand 'key defensive locations'. Hanko was not a 'key defensive location'
    1
  247.  @mabussubam512  go play, kiddo
    1
  248.  @mabussubam512  that is only comment you deserve. Go play
    1
  249. >Well, the Finns did what was necessary to maintain their independence and their freedom. Siding with the Germany and then, when winds have changed, with Soviet union?
    1
  250.  @apilolomi  slowpoke.jpg
    1
  251. >but they weren't part of the Axis powers. look deeper into the finnish units. You find some German divisions inside. Weren't part, of course
    1
  252. >yet I stood up to a tyrant you choose to side with one tyrant against another? Great choice, man!
    1
  253.  @Sturminfantrist  >Finland was a democratic nation and the wesetrn allies France and GB should had helped them during the Winter war it doesn't work that way > no wounder that the Finns tried to take back what they lost not a wise move, really
    1
  254.  @Sturminfantrist  >It was at least a move to take back what they lost wasn't wise. They could just wait. Or.. they could agree to Moscow demands in the first place. As Mannerheim proposed
    1
  255.  @ernestcote3398  I don't see any connections here
    1
  256.  @ernestcote3398  sorry, but in that case Poland should have been less aggressive
    1
  257.  @ernestcote3398  to neighbouring countries. You really don't know history of early 20th century Poland, do you?
    1
  258.  @ernestcote3398  so, you have not studied, but you know very well? Of course
    1
  259.  @rexfrommn3316  you talking about quite specific situation, then
    1
  260.  @KuopassaTv  I don't see tendencies to such behavior until the end of 1941
    1
  261. >and they didn't do much beyond that wat? Compare the old border with border in 1942 >Not taking part in the siege of Leningrad after the Germans needed help kind of attests to limited war aims it attests to limited war capabilities
    1
  262.  @timomastosalo  >So attacking Finland Stalin got what he feared: German troops in Finland. he didn't feared German troops in Finland particularly.
    1
  263. ​ @bobbleheadelvis6607  nope, it wasn't. Everybody and their dog still chewing old cold war western bullshit propaganda about 40000 soviet troops destroyed at Raate road, Simo Hayha and his kill count and so on.
    1
  264.  @bobbleheadelvis6607  as I said, people still chewing old cold war western bullshit propaganda. So, unbiased video on the topic wouldn't harm anyone
    1
  265. >So who really was the one who started the hostilities? Finland in 1918? >Soviets invaded Finland under pretext of false flag attack You are really don't know your history. USSR din't used any particular attack as a pretext for invasion. >Of course Finland took revenge when they got the opportunity when Germany invaded USSR. "Finland"? If I remember correctly, "Finland" in general didn't know about no war before late spring of 1941
    1
  266. they helped to take Leningrad. But germans did not fulfill their part of the plan in time
    1
  267.  @Darqshadow  >Man to Man the Garand was better than the Kar and with use of the Thompson and Carbine the fighting became more lopsided for the U.S. air superiority helped too
    1
  268. >Finland opted for the second and only option left which was the axis Why Sweden didn't opted for the second option? Maybe, because it didn't wanted to get territories of Soviet Union, eh?
    1
  269. ​ @robowarrior2126  >You've posted tens of comments all in Anti-Finnish tone under this video. nope, it wasn't Anti-Finnish tone. It was "Anti-guys who think that Continuation War was somehow justified" and "Anti-guys who think that Finns were good guys in the WW2" tone >Finland was under a constant threat of another invasion. Fact. Lie. >Offensive-plans to re-invade Finland are made by the Red Army Army are constantly planning thing. That's the job of General Staff >Attack Preparations were made what preparations? >Molotov pressures Germany to look elsewhere if the USSR were to re-invade I read this text. As far as I remember, Molotov expressed concern about the presence of German interests and German troops in Finland >Had Finland looked elsewhere she might have gotten invaded from two sides Or not. >Petsamo nickel mines Finland provided nickel to Germany anyway >Karelian Isthmus approach to Leningrad belonged to USSR, not to Finland > Effectively giving Finland the Poland treatment. Poland had it coming since 1920's. Not the case with Finland >Finland wanted it's lands back Yes. And some more. >At the time, backing Germany made the most sense. Yes. If you are a minor scavenger, siding with large predator will provide you some juicy scraps >Betting on the Germans was not only the ONLY choice Finland had, but also seemed the smartest at the time. Betting on the Germany wasn't the only choice Finland had, but also seemed the smartest at the time for Ryti and his clique >She was never in direct threat of Soviet invasion but Sweden was in direct threat of German invasion. >She would've been too costly and pointless for the Germans to invade try and apply same logic for Finland >So in some ways Sweden opted for the second option; which in their example was heavy handed Axis cooperation. but they never fought the Germans war, as a state. >All of this is fact and there is no way around it. part of this are fact. Your conclusions, though. are not Don't try to paint Finland as innocent victim of the circumstances. There was a choice, and Finland government choose to fight Hitler's war, because they thought it would bring profit. Not only something abstract like 'survival in the Hitler's Europe', but specific thing like Rebola and Porosozero
    1
  270.  @robowarrior2126  >here are no "good guys" and "bad guys" tell that to the Finns in the comments section
    1
  271. >Minor points: By "taking Karelia", the Finns were referring to the Karelian Istmus(Karjala), lost in the Winter War, not Eastern Karelia(Vepsia). bullshit. They wanted all Karelia > Finland's engagement was an offensive but not an aggression. just words play. They had they goals, namely - seize Karelia
    1
  272. >is Ireland now to be considered an aggressor in the Iraq war??? yep >If Ireland today decided to take back northern Ireland is it the aggressor or simply claiming back its rightful land??? "Rightful land"? "Claiming back"? LOLWUT? Independent Ireland exists only 100 years.
    1
  273.  @DeagláinÓCathail  Britain is an island. They have England and Scotland and Whales though
    1
  274. > I also read somewhere (and haven't yet accepted this as verbatim) that the Finns deliberately didn't push too far in the siege on Lenningrad they pushed as far as soviet fortifications >and allowed the Russians just a sliver of land/space to get a few food supplies in google "Road of life" maps
    1
  275.  @FXxcRx0ka  Finns tell that they were mobilizing to attack, and had German troops and equipment in their country. Simple as that
    1
  276.  Tabourba  difference is that Finnish troops participated in German unit destined to attack Murmansk
    1
  277. third option - stay neutral
    1
  278. >Tonns of SMG basicaly useless in a fields as CQC was more of an exception than a rule. Especially on East European fields. you have no idea what you're talking about. а) Soviet infantry, armed with submachineguns, rapidly closed with enemy riding on tanks b) with single shots and short bursts SMG's were effective up to 200 meters
    1
  279. ​ @slicemf5347  >To ride to an enemy trenches on tank is another form of suicide you have no idea what you are talking about. The safest attack method for infantry is to reach enemy lines as quickly as possible > Infantry goes on feet. to make it easier for machine gunners and mortars of the enemy to shoot at them ,yes >or alone from mg34\42 you don't realize that approaching to the enemy lines on foot makes infantry much more convenient target for MG34/42, do you? > Yea, and mosin is effective on 800 metres. nope. 400. How do you think, why? > In other words, outside of shooting range You wil miss. nope. Bullet drop is taken into account >Trained shooter in prone position will hit target at 200m, but from foot, rushing to an enemy trenches? forget about it. you really have no idea how the infantry attacks proceeds. NOBODY takes aimed shots while rushing to the enemy trenches. Germans, brits, americans, russians - nobody. >And once agai - You have to reach this distance first. familiarize yourself with WW1 assault infantry tactics. You can get an gist of how it was done before introduction of tanks and personnel carriers
    1
  280. >however in the open rural areas rifles would have the advantage because of the superior range. You must have quite skilled rifleman to use advantages of the rifle >Thus you deplete your own forces rapidly as well. as a matter of fact - no. Look at assault troops in WWI - often enough they had no losses >Someone using an SMG tend to use a lot more ammunition on blind fire I assure you, same goes for rifle fire >That means that more room in the supply train, that could have been allocated to other items, is taken up by small arms ammunition. look at the rate of fire of MG-38/MG-42. Then talk about consumption of ammunition :D >Overall since no army adopted the USSR tactics after the war, it seems unlikely that pure SMGs offered an overall advantage over the rifle/mg squad composition. But modern assault rifles are more close to SMG, than to traditional rifle
    1
  281.  @jernmajoren  >Not really, in open terrain where you can see your enemy at long range thing is, enemy don't want you to see him or hit him. So, it doesn't behave like target on the shooting range >WWI != WWII yup. They added tanks for rapid advancement and planes to suppress the defenders. But if you look into infantry tactics... >Assaulting troops in WWII often suffered horrendous losses. when closing to the enemy, yes. Alternate, they can seat in trenches taking potshots with rifles :D >The MG-34/MG-42 had slightly higher RoF than the PPD/PPsH-41, so there is only minor difference in ammo consumption. a) rifle ammo has much more weight and volume than pistol ammo b) MG's are used for suppression, which implies a high consumption of ammo >After WWII the common issued infantry weapons in use either full case that comes from USA. Because US generals imagined, that their soldiers would precisely hit targets at many hundreds of meters, despite their own studies that show that real combat distances for infantry during WW2 were about 300 meters >Modern Assault rifles have more in common with rifles than they do SMG's. lightweight, low recoil ammunition, effective range about 400-500 meters?
    1
  282.  @jernmajoren  >For germans the MG was the primary squad weapon meant to kill enemy, the rifle men were there to protect the MG And consumed rifle ammo at high rate >Thus rifles or MG's would be more optimal than SMGs to engage the enemy. yep. In their imaginary world :D In the end they decided that small, relatively short-range ammunition(not rifle cartridges) is way to go on the modern battlefield
    1
  283.  @jernmajoren  >Both of them are same size as rifles MP-40 or PPSH are the same size as rifle > So the main usage is that akin to rifles. do you think that SMG main usage was 'spray and pray'? >In general soldiers armed with short range weapons have historically taken significantly higher casualties than those with longer range weapons longer range weapons you mention includes not only infantry small arms
    1
  284.  @jernmajoren  > I think they were meant to fight the enemy at close ranges. what do you mean by close range? Is 300 meters a close range?
    1
  285.  @jernmajoren  >At longer ranges the precision of SMGs drops fairly quickly I really don't know where you got that idea. Effective range for soviet SMG shooting point target is 200 meters. If we take Kiraly 9x23 submachinegun, effective range will increase accordingly
    1
  286. > Ultimately they were directly threatened by the Soviets how so?
    1
  287.  @antiochusiiithegreat7721  > Why should the Finns think that it wouldn't happen again? because USSR had what it wanted, and Finland had no value by itself >The Soviets had a obvious interest in invading Finland. the had not. They had interest in Germany staying out of Finland >So I think its obvious that Finland would look to form an alliance with the other competitive power Germany as they saw alignment with a greater power as the best chance of remaining independent. It's obvious that Finland wanted revenge and some territorial gains
    1
  288.  @antiochusiiithegreat7721  > Soviet Unions actions prove that they were trying to restore the territory lost to the empire during the revolution. Why didn't SU captured whole Poland then?
    1
  289.  @antiochusiiithegreat7721  Are YOU kidding? Polish–Soviet War of 1920 wasn't aimed to capture Poland territory. Invasion had more ambitious goals. As for 1939 - USSR got part of the Poland along the Curzon line
    1
  290. @Sami Sund "saved you from communism"? Then, why Mannerheim turned against Finland saviors?
    1
  291. wow. I thought y'all "Soviet Union were planning on invading Europe." guys were dead
    1
  292.  @arvopohja7693  they "invaded" Europe?
    1
  293. @Leif saying or writing outright bullshit doesn't confirms anything
    1
  294. @Leif i didn't said or wrote any bullshit at all. Whaddayamean?
    1
  295. @Leif yes. but I didn't wrote bullshit of any kind here
    1
  296.  @alanpennie8013  They had troubles flattening Germany while flying from England. I don't see how they could do that to Helsinki
    1
  297. >It was allready known that Soviet attack was imminent because of the strenghed forces on Finnish- Soviet border nope. It's post-war fairy tales, like stories about that the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Germany >stating that he would not put his sword in the sheath until Finland and Eastern Karelia were free. free from what?
    1
  298. what nickel?
    1
  299.  @desmondanderson665  yes, but nickel in Petsamo belonged to USSR, as far as i remember
    1
  300.  @desmondanderson665  what semantics? You told that Hitler couldn't risk his primary source of nickel. But Finland wasn't such a source at the time.
    1
  301.  @desmondanderson665  >The Russians did not take all of Petsano they took parts that matter >As a matter of race they were contemplating a second war on the Finns second war nobody knew about
    1
  302.  @arvopohja7693  poor, poor finns. They had no free will, unlike they sweden neighbors
    1
  303. > which was fine, except that its a bullet magnet infantrymen in the open field weren't an bullet magnet?
    1
  304. >No petrol, no winter clothes, not (enough) bullets really? How then they kept feeding those 1200rpm MG42?
    1
  305. > Finland knew they would face another Soviet Invasion sooner or later Finland knew? >What do you do? stay neutral and wait while big guys fight their war. Like Sweden did
    1
  306.  @spookyshadowhawk6776  Sweden was captured between Germany and Germany ally and didn't choose a side, Portugal and Spain were captured between Germany and Mediterranean sea and didn't choose a side, Switzerland was captured between Germany and Germany allies and didn't choose a side. And they weren't crushed
    1
  307.  @spookyshadowhawk6776  >With Finland, Sweden was totally surrounded, neutral in name only they didn't send their troops to fight Germany war, didn't they? >Spain still flew Me-109s into the early 1960s Israel flew Me-109's, so what?
    1
  308. >it is their only option because Soviet will attack again... as a matter of fact, Finland >And again why not take some more if it is better to defend with a new natural borderline... so, USSR aggression against the Finland in 1939 wasn't an aggression? With a new borderline, it was better to defend, after all
    1
  309. ​ @Hasse.Andersson  >It seems clear to me, that Soviet attacked first and was planning to occupy all of Finland... attacked first - yes, planned to occupy all of Finland -that's doubtful But I was talking about "if someone has taken your property or land, then ofcourse if the opportunity arises to take it back, why not? how could that be aggressive? And again why not take some more if it is better to defend with a new natural borderline..." part. In that case, USSR can't be counted as aggressor towards Finland
    1
  310. Mainila wasn't used as a pretext for war. Just so you to know
    1
  311.  @bige1106  > Stalin refused to allow their evacuation ROFL. What an stupid idiot you are. People of Leningrad were evacuated. Some of them were evacuated right in the hands of advancing Germans
    1
  312. >We had to fight to survive. nope. And continuation war didn't provide nothing for survivability of Finland
    1
  313.  @BimBam69526  Finland's goal was to occupy territories of Soviet Union
    1
  314.  @BimBam69526  >just like with the Baltics right? '' Remind me, please, what happened with Finland between 1940 and June 1941? Soviet military presence were established, Mannerheim line was destroyed aaaaand.. What happened then?
    1
  315. > Finland would not have invaded Soviet Union, if Soviet Union would not have attaked Finland. does it somehow make it right thing to do?
    1
  316.  @w.1.-du9gs  don't remember Petrozavodsk ever belonging to Finland
    1
  317. >rebuilt its armed forces after Winter War in a slower pace is 'rebuilding of army forces' a good thing?
    1
  318.  @rappakalja5295  does it help?
    1
  319.  @rappakalja5295  with defending against imperial superpower
    1
  320. >They just wanted to be left alone! so Finlands elites decided to assist Germany only to be left alone? That's peculiar logic
    1
  321.  @patricklundh4738  good points
    1
  322.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  the former is a legend. But anyways, it contradicts with 'they wanted to be left alone'
    1
  323.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  > And it's hardly a legend It's a legend indeed. It's a frivolous interpretation of Molotov's words
    1
  324.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  as a matter of fact - no.
    1
  325.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  Finns had advantage of intelligence. And Germany promised them return of all lost territories
    1
  326.  @MRtapio5  again - Finland wanted to be left alone and because of that planned to attack USSR together with Germany?
    1
  327.  @MRtapio5  yeah. Continuation War. 1939.
    1
  328.  @MRtapio5  we were discussing continuation war. Is your vision impaired?
    1
  329.  @MRtapio5  > When he said "they just wanted to be left alone" he was implying 1939 don't be ridiculous. He said that after saying 'Mannerheim knew Russia and knew it was just too big to be conquered and OCCUPIED.'
    1
  330.  @MRtapio5  >He brought up winter war at the beginning. and after that he brought up impossibility of occupation of Russia by FInland
    1
  331.  @MRtapio5  'my' English skills. And you ignoring the part about occupation of Russia. Again - is your vision impaired or what?
    1
  332. >Stalin was likely extraordinarily paranoid that the Finnish's agreements with Germany would allow the Germans to easily take Leningrad by the sea Germany specifically has nothing to do with 'Stalin's paranoia'. It could be any major power, that could use Finland (and Mannerheim line) as foothold to attack Soviet Union and Leningrad specifically
    1
  333.  @The_Original_Default_Username  > it was specifically Finland's cozy relationship with Germany there was nothing especially cozy between Germany and Finland until 1939-940 >The Mannerheim Line wasn't even a thing it was a thing during negotiations in Moscow in 1939
    1
  334.  @The_Original_Default_Username  >The Mannerheim Line wasn't deployed until it was certain without a doubt the Soviets were going to invade. sorry, you are delusional
    1
  335.  @The_Original_Default_Username  I recommend you to read more. Some modern research by credible authors, not 40 year old processed propaganda products
    1
  336.  @JackKrei  Do Beevor, Hanson, Stepman etc work with soviet archives? If not - how are they relevant to the Eastern front? >I'm right about it all nope, you are clueless little man, too incompetent to even realize that
    1
  337.  @JackKrei  >I did provide proof! nope. The proof would be citing the sources used by Beevor, Hanson, Stepman etc. >Oh never said you were a soviet period folk " you, like all the soviet period folks". In proper english language "like all" means inclusion
    1
  338.  @Jokakutihut1  I'm sure they signed some agreement.
    1
  339.  @okphalmer6596  >Attack against it would inevitably spill to other Finnish territory as well. I don't see how > if Fnns would have just the let the Red Army to supplied it by land through Finnish railway lines as it was done in reality. it' not how neutrality are done during wartime.
    1
  340. Did he?
    1
  341. as the matter of fact, 316th rifle division consisted mostly of russians.
    1
  342. >Guns are one of the few things communists make that are actually of good quality nah
    1
  343. >Germany sold us artillery, ammunition and some weapons, 1942 aircraft and few bombers + anti tank weapons what about mixed finnish-german units? Joint tactical plans? >Our army was strong enough to fight without germans. why germans lend you a tank regiment then? >Finland took one more time a great defence victory wat?
    1
  344. :D
    1
  345. >The reason ehy we took over so much of Russian Karelia was to establish a buffer. oh, stop it, you >The finnish high command knew that the germans would lose as early as 1941 but they go to war nonetheless. Are you really believe in that? >so they made a buffer so the war will not be fought on finnish soil exactly, why? Did they thought that Finland was strong enough to stop Red Army in "buffer zone"?
    1
  346.  @vilzupuupaa4680  >Obviously you don't want to fight on your own land. obviously you can get as much land in the future reich as you occupied before the end of war >This assumption was made in late 1941 and then Finland stopped advances in Karelia. So, no "buffers", just trying to hold on to what they've won >You were the ones to start it. Really? So, no German troops in Finland in 18th June, no minelaying of soviet coast in the morning of 22nd June, no refueling of german bombers?
    1
  347.  @vilzupuupaa4680  if we look deep enough, we can remember what heimosodat was
    1
  348.  @vilzupuupaa4680  how it is related to USSR?
    1
  349. As a matter of fact, there is a site, called "Память народа", where Russian Ministry of Defense publishes documents from soviet archives
    1
  350.  @moisuomi  and they lost territory + tens thousands of lives.
    1
  351.  @moisuomi  only the Finns
    1
  352. they were effective when infantry, armed with SMG's rapidly closed with enemy. Riding on tanks, for example
    1
  353.  @pebo8306  > Why did the Russians loose 20 mil.men vs 5 mil. from the Wehrmacht! because most part of those 20 mil. were civilians
    1
  354.  @pebo8306  >your answer is BS nope. Just because you stupid enough to think, that all 20 millions of deaths were soldiers don't makes my answer a bullshit >why did the Wehrmacht inflict 5x casualties to the Red Army???? short answer - Wermacht did not inflicted 5x casualties on the Red Army >Maybe because most senior Red Army officers made extremly poor decisions maybe because you know shit about thing you trying to reason
    1
  355.  @apilolomi  you can see with what? Obviously you don't have eyes on your ass of a head
    1
  356.  @apilolomi  maybe you have eyes on your palms?
    1
  357.  @yulusleonard985  >each infantrymen only have 40 rounds infantry man will have as many rounds as he can carry >Those soldier will fight more effective with Mossin than SVT how do you measure the effectiveness of the soldier?
    1
  358.  @yulusleonard985  so, you didn't compared unit cost of MP-40 with Kar-98?
    1
  359. >the Finish were probably the most successful combatant of World War II yep. Lost some pre-war territory + tens of thousands of lives. That's definitely a success
    1
  360.  @deeremies2266  nope
    1
  361. ​ @deeremies2266  it tells us that Finland mobilized its army 3 months prior the war
    1
  362.  @deeremies2266  >Prior to the war Soviet Union started? yep >Dangerous to soviet union yep. 20 years before ships of the Royal Navy based in Koivisto attacked Kronstadt. Neutral country indeed
    1
  363.  @deeremies2266  roflmao. You took Royal Navy of the United Kingdom as refugees? How interesting
    1
  364.  @deeremies2266  *sigh* google "Operation Red Trek"
    1
  365.  @deeremies2266  it has nothing to do with refugees. It has all to do with attacks on Kronstadt from Koivisto
    1
  366.  @deeremies2266  > oh youre talking about the brits. Yep. Royal Navy >Yeah Finland had just gained independence and was a weak nation. we basically had to let the brits do their thing. Of course, lol. That could be applied to any period of Finland pre-WW2 history :D
    1
  367.  @andrebas1124  >why germans were reported to use 200 grenades per 10 soldiers with 2 supply guys carried 2 sacks of grenades to clean up the tranches? Soviets usually have 2 grenades per soldier I assure you, that soviet soldiers also used 200 or more grenades per 10 soldiers in same cases as germans
    1
  368. >Soviets own fault for attacking here and German troops stationed in Finland in preparation to attack Murmansk alongside Finnish troops when Barbarossa begins had nothing to do with it?
    1
  369. ​ @xKuukkelix  we are talking about Continuation war here, are we not?
    1
  370. great job
    1
  371.  @horatio8213  so, you are confirming that Finland wasn't neutral and was preparing to attack Soviet Union alongside Germany? Good
    1
  372.  @horatio8213  >I just claim that between 22nd-25th June finish goverment try to secure neutrality. t's a false claim, because you should know that before Barbarossa Finnish troops were prepared to attack Soviet Union alongside German troops
    1
  373.  @horatio8213  >Then what you call Swiss preparation to fight with Germans in case of german invasion are Swiss based Allied troops on their territory in preparation to fight German invasion? If not - how is that related to the German-Finnish preparations to attack Soviet Union?
    1
  374.  @horatio8213  >Yes, there were some allied soldiers . as part of the Poland army? Was Swiss prepared to go to war alongside Allies? > before 22 June 1941 III Reich and Soviet Union were in allince and Finland have no choice but give the rights both this countries for transit and bases. according to 'alliance' Germany wasn't allowed to post it troops at the Finland territory. But it has no relation to fact that Finland had plans to to attack Soviet Union before 22 June. Simple as that
    1
  375.  @raceris7309  >The thing is, 7.5% of 1930's Lithuania's population were Jews. which, incidentally, tells us nothing about anti-semitism level >so you saying that Lithuania were hateful against Jews is just plain wrong Nope. Fact that " first Lithuanian bicyclist had Jewish blood" only tells us that there were (probably) no state anti-semitism in Lithuania >not all Lithuanians participated in the Holocaust not all, that's true. But those, who participated... Man, they were so enthusiastic about that. AFAIR, mass-killings in Lithuania started from the first days of war. That's not a common thing
    1
  376.  @JohnHenryEden2277  > Don't you think that if Lithuanians truly were so antisemitic they would have expelled or exterminated their Jewish population during the two decades of independence? I don't think so. Such deeds take a lot of effort.
    1
  377.  @raceris7309  >The story explains it well why Baltics colaborated more with Germans than the Allies there is a collaboration and there is a collaboration >The point is, you're looking at lithuanians as serial killers and nothing else! nope >We do not glorify the ones who commited those crimes really? No glory for the Shuma veterans or guys from Lietuvos Aktyvistų Frontas? >And I have no clue where you got the information about the death of Jews before German occupation It's quite common knowledge. I got mine from Alexander Dyukov books and talks, you can start from article in Wikipedia about Holocaust in Lithuania and get the sources from there
    1
  378. > what the Stavka thought about the average grunt.. not a lot in Red Army SMG's were issued to specialized units. For example, for troops who accompanied tanks in attack, "panzergrenadiers" so to speak
    1
  379.  @yulusleonard985  >The most expensive part is the barel nope >So for the soviet its cheaper to produce ppsh 41 than any mosin nagant. in fact, at the end PPSh were slightly more expensive to make than Mosin rifle >For the germans its cheaper to produce luger than any mp 40. only because the MP-40 was so darn expensive to make. But MP-40 was more expensive than Kar-98
    1
  380.  @yulusleonard985  >PPSH mechanism are too simple to be expensive. it's not the complexity of mechanism that makes the gun expensive.. Look at the PPD, for example. No so complex, but his cost was on pair with DP-28 >Also the fact even today longer barel will cost more I think that you can buy truckload of Mosin rifles for the cost of one Colt M1911 >Any direct blowback are cheap to manufacture. All you have to do is to add spring for the action. ROFLMAO. You really don't know what you are talking about. Just google MP-40 unit cost vs Kar-98 unit cost
    1
  381. >Soviet lost 250000 killed and about 600000 wounded. LOLWUT?
    1
  382. So, german troops, stationed in Finland before Barbarossa, would go home unless bombings happened?
    1
  383.  @heikkisallinen9012  to made Finland to push them out of the country?
    1
  384.  @heikkisallinen9012  Molotov asked
    1
  385.  @heikkisallinen9012  perhaps. Or perhaps not
    1
  386.  @heikkisallinen9012  your compatriots in the comments think otherwise
    1
  387. nothing on pair with MG-34/MG-42
    1
  388.  @teppokuusisto144  >Lots of commies stayed active or worked underground and Soviet Embassy was their highest friend with Finland being actively anti-soviet (AFAIR, Molotov complained to Hitler about that)? How's that even possible?
    1
  389.  @w.1.-du9gs  lol. Check out what Lapua movement was
    1
  390. yes, revenge and some Karelia
    1
  391. Yep. It's like all suddenly forgotten the text of 'Barbarossa'
    1
  392.  @duhni4551  are there any great power that is capable of leaving it's(or someone's) neighbors alone?
    1
  393.  @popsey72  >Well the Soviet goals of the winter war was not just to move the border rather to conquer whole of Finland of course. Otherwise all those casualties of Finland look kinda pale >So if its ambition was to neutrlize Finland Ambition was to prevent other power from using Finland as foothold to attack USSR. They don't teach you in the schools about that, eh?
    1
  394.  @QuizmasterLaw  but there is no 'facts', there is only your fantasies. Like "Auschwitz methods were taken up from the Cheka"
    1
  395.  @QuizmasterLaw  lead me? To noting that you make things up
    1
  396. >It was simply to make the border as short and easy to defend as possible ROFL. So, instead of thousands of kilometers of border without any living human or road Finland wanted short border with a developed road network. So that misfortunes like what happened to the 44th division in 1939 do not happen to the Soviet troops, I guess?
    1
  397.  @sampohonkala4195  >If you compare on map the border after the winter war and then the border as far to the east as Finland went, you will see my point very clearly. if you remember how bad Red Army performed to the north of Ladoga during Winter War, you will see MY point very clearly >The depth of defence is vital IRL depth of defense didn't had any practical meaning in 1944
    1
  398. >There's no way you're getting 900 rounds per minute from ANY firearm, :D :D :D >To do so generates a LOT of heat and can potentially damage the weapon it depends on the cartridge. Obviously, pistol cartridges generate a lot less heat than rifle cartridges >Add in time to change magazines as well, and the much more likely rate of fire would be more like 100-150 rpm we are talking cyclic rate of fire, which is independent of changing magazines etc
    1
  399. >An assault meant to break the enemy can not be conducted by a 1:1 ratio. as a matter of fact it can
    1
  400.  @agris8859  >To say these Finnish men died for nothing is to say that you see Finland as nothing. I stayed on topic. And topic was "Continuation War". And I could repeat myself - people of Finland during Continuation War died for nothing, except ambitions of some of their leaders >And no, they did not care about taking any land outside of what they had owned previously because they had no means to achieve that goal?
    1
  401.  @popsey72  'our side' achieved survival. There was no future for 'untermenchen' in nazi's world
    1
  402.  @Killjoy45  you can't learn it yourself and had to turn to strangers in comment section for an explanation?
    1
  403.  @watgaming9479  because USSR didn't wanted their independence, maybe?
    1
  404.  @Jansk1h  could you be more specific?
    1
  405.  @scorpionWhite  Finland won it's Independence in 1941? Really?
    1
  406.  @scorpionWhite  sorry, but it's a bullshit, based only on a stories from Germans, without any evidence that could back it up
    1
  407.  @scorpionWhite  after Winter War Molotov repeatedly asked Hitler, what German troops are doing inside soviet sphere of influence (Finland, in that case) >I`ve heard there are a saying in Finland certainly you've heard a lot of things, that do not connect with reality
    1
  408.  @scorpionWhite  >so you cannot be aware of history (for excample) that's harsh words. Especially from a man, who can't distinguish between Winter War and Continuation War
    1
  409.  @scorpionWhite  > yes, Russia was threatened and tried to conquer it again really? When?
    1
  410.  @scorpionWhite  >1940 - 41, but didn't get permission from Hitler. he didn't ask permission from Hitler >Read neutral history. I already did that
    1
  411.  @scorpionWhite  >two episodes of the same aim of Russia nope. You should learn some real history, for your own good
    1
  412.  @scorpionWhite  > You mean "history" of Stalin and Butin, nope. I mean actual history. Not those semi-digested myths that decompose inside your skull
    1
  413.  @scorpionWhite  I'm talking about real history. You - retelling cold war era myths you barely remember. That's all on that subject
    1
  414.  sakatt41  bla-bla-bla
    1
  415. MG was the dominant small arm for the German infantry and it consumes ammo with dreadful speed
    1
  416.  @rogerhinman5427  >. But when you dig into the details Germany ends up losing much of it's industrial capacity to several factors, such as allied air interdiction, production slowdowns/absenteeism/sabotage in the occupied nations, sabotage/illness/death of slave labor, inefficient planning and management, etc. with all this they managed to increase production from 1941 to 1944
    1
  417. MP-40 is quite accurate SMG
    1
  418.  @sergeontheloose  > As for MP-40 bullet stopping in the "vatnik" - there are numerous accounts of that there were accounts of soviet steel cuirass СН-42 not capable of stopping MP-40 bullets with steel core
    1
  419.  @kallekonttinen1738  yes "what"? You think that German-Finnish military cooperation was comparable to that between USSR and Germany?
    1
  420.  @kallekonttinen1738  something at the level of Unternehmen Silberfuchs?
    1
  421.  @kallekonttinen1738  >There are many similarities. like mixed Finnish-German units? Or Axis units under Finnish command? I don't know any examples of such cooperation between USSR and Germany
    1
  422.  @kallekonttinen1738  so, I really can't see how you can compare Finnish-German and Soviet-German cooperation and say that it was 'similar'.
    1
  423.  @kallekonttinen1738  yes. And units of democratic Finland fought alongside units of dictatorial Germany.
    1
  424.  @verticallogic5909  so, Finland is Russia? Okay
    1
  425.  @michealohaodha9351  compare the old border with new one in 1942
    1
  426. ​ @verticallogic5909  > If Finland did indeed want more, they had every right to it. because they were "good guys", eh? >the Finns had every right to expect reparations so, they go and captured some USSR territory. Good guys do that, aren't they? >It was no less evil than Hitler's Germany. you don't have a slightest idea about USSR under Stalin.
    1
  427. >as help them defend against the inevitable strike of the evil empire inevitable? Really?
    1
  428. >were Molotov stated they planned to finish their unfinished business in Finland.... really? I thought that Molotov asked Hitler, what the German troops do in Finland. Since according to the pact they should not have been there
    1
  429. > and Molotov was also questioning Hitler if he had any problem with the ussr going back in to Finland nope, he didn't. He asked Hitler "what the fuck Germany doing inside OUR sphere of influence"
    1
  430.  @bige1106  ​ yes, Stalin stated that he wouldn't take shit from Germany.
    1
  431.  @raceris7309  It has nothing to do with 'amount of battles'. It's amount of the resources USSR provided to baltic states that matters
    1
  432.  @armands3153  actually, not. Do you know something about so called "supply categories" in USSR?
    1
  433.  @armands3153  категории снабжения
    1
  434.  @armands3153  >what do you mean by "resources USSR provided to the Baltic States"? food, clothes, household appliances, cars, etc. Anything you associate with quality of life >any resources given to the Baltic States were USSR's self-funding. yep. Funding mouths and bellies of Lithuanians, for example :D >Overall 16.5% of the Baltic State income went to USSR's budget and was never seen again. what "income", lol? You forgot that USSR didn't have a real economy? >You won't convince me otherwise. Again - there were so called "supply categories". Baltic states, along with Moscow, Leningrad and some other USSR republics, like Georgia, had the highest supply category. So, they were supplied with substantially more food and manufactured goods, than the other parts of USSR. There is yours "never seen again"
    1
  435.  @armands3153  nope. I'm talking about USSR from 1945 to 1989
    1
  436.  @armands3153  you really don't know anything about USSR times, do you? ;)
    1
  437. the reasons the MG42 was given such a high rate of fire was that it was an 'universal' machine gun
    1
  438. at last
    1
  439. Scary preview
    1
  440. >A victim cannot be an aggressor. why?
    1
  441.  @TomTom-rh5gk  >As I said it is a contradiction in terms. there is no contradiction here >Listen to TK he ties his tongue in knots trying to make Finland into the aggressor. i do not need to listen TiK to know, that Finland was aggressor in Continuation War
    1
  442.  @TomTom-rh5gk  i wrote to you because term 'contradiction' couldn't be applied to situation 'victim became aggressor' >No one cares what you believe or don’t believe but you care, pal. You care > you believe whatever your Uncle Joe Stalin says there is a another flaw in your logic. For most of the Russians Joseph Stalin is something 70 years old
    1
  443. >But again, there were no such luxuries. strangely, Sweden had such luxury
    1
  444. >and maybe a few other small pieces i bet, those 'small pieces' were bigger than your country
    1
  445.  @dondajulah4168  >The whole justification that the USSR had for the lands it took from Finland were that they were necessary for defensive strategic reasons. nope. It was a reason to start the war and reason to took some of those lands from Finland
    1
  446. Almighty42 'idea' cost nothing without embodiment >Stalin was a criminal and nothing more then that. you know many criminals that create superpower from their country?
    1
  447. I really don't understand the fuss about pronunciation. You don't speak russian, and learning russian speech isn't your goal, so inevitably you'll butcher some names. We all prone to that
    1
  448. enough for Molotov to raise that question in Berlin
    1
  449. >nothing more Then, why they claimed Petrozawodsk?
    1
  450.  @kallegran7225  looks more like an a rule, than a exception. Quite comparable to russians
    1
  451.  @kallegran7225  why USSR will need more Finnish territory?
    1
  452.  @kallegran7225  yep, and they got all they wanted
    1
  453. >I do not consider Finland as part of the Axis they were quite involved, though >and apparently the Allies didn't either as it is my understanding that the United States did not declare war on Finland USSR, for example, did not declare war on Japan until 1945 >Any country, including Finland has a right to defend herself, in Finland's case it was a right to attack neighboring country
    1
  454.  @adrianshephard378  >Finland was a co-beligerment, not an ally. Finnish-german units under german command counts as an ally in my book >They only fought to regain territory and fight the Soviets back. how that makes them not an ally of Germany?
    1
  455.  @JM-dw8eq  idk. Ask @dbassman27 and @Corporal Shephard
    1
  456. >Before the war, Latvia was actually one of the wealthiest and fastest growing economies in Europe ROFLMAO
    1
  457. > it strikes an extremely eerie resemblance with recent events in Ukraine and the Caucusus how so?
    1
  458.  @zombieguyproducion  sorry, but I don't see "an extremely eerie resemblance" here. Could you elaborate?
    1
  459.  @zombieguyproducion  Baltic states weren't occupied military, you should remember that. Georgia wasn't occupied at all.
    1
  460.  @zombieguyproducion  yes, Baltic States were occupied. But there were no initial military intervention. >As for Georgia, Russia literally INVADED Georgia 2008 for couple of days, yes. Without any further political consequences. I'm failing to see resemblance with events in the Ukraine or Baltic States here
    1
  461.  @zombieguyproducion  >Military occupation. Which is what I said... no resemblance to Crimean events, though. Except, maybe, referendum >And how lucky Georgia has control of Abkhazia Georgia had no control over Abkhazia since 1992. How it relates to Crimea and occupation of Baltic states?
    1
  462.  @zombieguyproducion  >definetly not similar. we were talking about 'eerie resemblance', remember? And what about Georgia?
    1
  463.  @Einritus  > You question everyone else’s sources so far little or anything at all sources were provided > If something calls for brainwashing it is that. yep, there is some brainwashed people here, in the comments. @Patrik Pössi, for example >Anyway check out HOLODOMOR. I checked it out long ago. What should I do next?
    1
  464. >cooperate with evil Nazi Germany to avoid that avoid what, lol? >Finland could have assisted Germany in taking Murmansk but avoided that they could have assisted shit to do shit. Don't overestimate Finland's military capabilities >They could have attacked the railway line from Murmansk southward, but avoided that Don't overestimate Finland's military capabilities[2] >they could have barraged Leningrad from its position on the frontline by the old border Don't overestimate Finland's military capabilities[3] you know very little about capabilities of WWII Finland and that's showing
    1
  465. ​ @kentabrahamsson  >Whats so lol about that? the though that "evil Stalin" dreamed about "steamrolling" Finland. >So what facts do you present besides your repeated sentences? what facts YOU present besides your belief in the mighty Finnish army? >As an example Finland certanly had the capability to barrage Leningrad targets from the frontline at the old border. nope, they didn't >The artillery barrage that took out the Soviet full division attack at Ihantala and stopped offensive showed that that's some major bullshit. Talk with the finns about battle of Tali-Ihantala.
    1
  466. Loza had quite limited experience with Thompson SMG. AFAIR, soviet testers from NIPSVO got a positive impression of its characteristics
    1
  467. ​ @FrazzP  >The Baltic states wanted to stay neutral of course, Why they would make connections with Germany than to stay neutral? >Enjoy your fantasy of thinking the USSR were the good guys ROFL. I didn't ever say that USSR were good guys. But you didn't need my participation to determine my views. That's something
    1
  468. ​ @dobypilgrim6160  >You have watched way too many propaganda films I really think that it's your psychological projection. Me - I read books. Not 'propaganda books'. >Damn I hadn't realized Poland was such a warmongering country Maybe, you watched too many propaganda films? > And IN FACT Finland did refuse to participate in the siege of Leningrad. Yes, by staying on old border. Wait, oh shi...
    1
  469. Sorry, but Lenin promised nothing except what was given by Tartu treaty
    1
  470.  @allualex2606  Yeah, sure. It is worth nothing, though, that Baltics and Western Ukraine also had guerrilla movements. 'Had' is the keyword here
    1
  471.  @allualex2606  I wonder, how guerrillas would sustain themselves in that magnificent Finnish forests which are mostly uninhabited :D And I assure you, that population of Western Ukraine was(and is) lot larger than population of Finland
    1
  472.  @allualex2606  >What can u do with population that doesnt know what to do in case of attack? you can recruit guerrilla fighters. And sustain them ;) >Finns have been warriors since the beginning of time unlike Ukrainians yeah, that helped them not to be conquered by Sweden and Russia in succession. Wait, oh shi....
    1
  473.  @allualex2606  >We were first warriors of Sweden, then we were warriors of Russia Yes, of course. Especially considering that population of Grand Duchy of Finland wasn't drafted >Till this day we are the only country in Europe that can realistically defend itself from Russia ROFLMAO. Okay
    1
  474. >LAH had many casualties at METAXAS line less than expected >fallschirmjägers were annihilated in Creta fighting english troops, yes
    1
  475. Yep. fiction books as the source
    1
  476. >so was the Soviet Union for a couple of years. O'rly? Exactly how?
    1
  477.  @mechantl0up  was there something about allying with Germany? No? I though so
    1
  478.  @mechantl0up  nope, there weren't. Study some history, dude. Ask the Baltic peoples and in particular the Poles if you need to learn that there were no "Soviet-Nazi alliance". Not in the form and not in the spirit
    1
  479. > That means in a fight the Soviet squad would soon run out of ammunition, and the German squad with mostly bolt action rifles and one machine gun would be shooting and more accurately for longer. in reality German squad will expend more ammunition because MG34/42 high rate of fire > Ammunition is heavy, and troops can only carry so much but you can carry much more pistol cartridges than rifle cartridges
    1
  480.  @TheMentalblockrock  >But the MG42 is only one gun and one soldier, trainer to fire short bursts and at definite targets/ suppression. it's the main weapon of the German squad. How do you think, how much ammunition "suppression" requires? You can see that on youtube >The Russians were all spraying bullets as they charged. ROFL. Really? How do you know that? >Plus ALL the German squad carried MG42 belts as said in this video. because high rate of ammo consumption >Therefore the Germans would use less ammunition per enemy casualty. therefore Germans would use more rifle ammunition per enemy casualty. Rifle ammunition is much more heavier than pistol ammunition
    1
  481. >Would finns moved to White Sea–Baltic Canal, which was a possiblilty - soviets kept the Finland front in the lowest priority throughout the war, they would cut the lend-lease line from Murmansk could they afford to loose territories they captured during 1941?
    1
  482.  @romangl9070  did what? Cut Murmansk railroad line?
    1
  483.  @romangl9070  yes, but it wasn't their will
    1
  484. soviet antitank rifles weren't capable of long-range precise shots
    1
  485. ​ @popsey72  >the only place where the Soviet had fully combat ready divisions 22.6 1941 was on the Finnish border. ROFL. Why, mister ​Pössi? Why you insist in making yourself a clown?
    1
  486. > Everyone knew that Russians will return and try to annex Finland once again. How so?
    1
  487. bullshit. NKVD troops were intended to be used inside country. They weren't supposed to go against regular "military" troops
    1
  488. operation Silberfuchs, Finnish troops under German command - rings a bell?
    1
  489. ​ @wardeni4806  >They didn't get what they wanted the first time as the matter of fact, they did >and were quite literally planning another invasion I'm afraid, that's a fact only Finns know about >they had quite literally signed a secret treaty with the soviets where they recognised Finland as "soviet territory". nope. They recognized Finland as part of 'soviet sphere of influence' >The tension was there, everyone could see the peace wasn't going to last that's some alternate history. USSR had his hands full in other directions and Finland itself had no value, except those part, that were given to USSR after Winter War. >The Winter War left both sides hostile and unsatisfied USSR was quite satisfied >he took a big cigar and lit it up right next to Hitler's face. what a courage!!!!
    1
  490.  @wardeni4806  > You clearly don't know much about the subject outside russian propaganda. you are clearly making psychological projections here >The Red army gave route planners to their invading troops of Finland, these papers included, among other things, basics of the Finnish language and instructions not to cross the Swedish border. As I said many times - it has nothing to do with annexation of Finland. Those plans were aimed to crush Finland military might
    1
  491. Little Gubba >Finland was not a part of the Axis powers, but it was aligned with them. so much aligned, that there were mixed Finnish-German units?
    1
  492. >USSR was also on the side of the axis really? They bombed Britain or France? > They invaded Poland Poland invaded Czechoslovakia when Germany captured it. So, Poland was on the side with axis? >supplied the vital raw materials that Germany needed Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland - they all provided some sort of resource Germany needed. They all were on the side of the axis? >And the USSR invaded Finland. Which was given the ok by there axis partner Germany. Germany was given ok by the axis partners Britain and France to capture Czechoslovakia I got your logic, pal
    1
  493. Ha!
    1
  494. why GULAG shouldn't have existed?
    1
  495. that could be said about many things in USSR during 1920-1950. Those were tough times
    1
  496. >The three primary types of weapon that Soviet infantry used were bolt-action Mosin–Nagant's, the semi-automatic SVT-40 and its automatic variant the AVT-40 nope. Number of built SVT-40 and AVT-40 was large(around 1,6 millon), but nothing to compare with numbers of Mosin's and SMG's produced(millions)
    1
  497.  @lotus95t  okay. But you said that "All three variants were used in similar numbers during the war". That's impossible
    1
  498.  @pebo8306  >I wonder why the Russians lost 5 times of their men compared to the Wehrmacht?? because they didn't starved Germans to death in prison camps
    1
  499.  @_kommandant_3055  not millions
    1
  500. Thing with Israel is that, that their opponents weren't peaceful neighbors and were(and are) quite determined to completely destroy Israel
    1
  501. AFAIR, Israel recognizes Palestine. Yep, Israel have some occupied lands, as a winner
    1
  502.  @sergeontheloose  >PPSh-41 was not a common gun for the Soviets during Stalingrad. Only the squad commander would have it. really? Alexey Isaev once pointed curious incident, when division, prepared to go into Stalingrad, was equipped with all automatic weapons it required(about 4000 units) but didn't had enough rifles
    1
  503. >They had no choice about sides. what about Swedes?
    1
  504.  @lauriruukki5702  did they go to war?
    1
  505.  @davedrewett2196  looks like you don't familiar with geography. Let me enlighten you - Sweden is located on the Scandinavian Peninsula, next to Norway and Finland
    1
  506.  @davedrewett2196  >having been to Sweden and Finland I never would have guessed. apparently, yes. >So what is your point? Your examples with Republic of Ireland and Antarctica are irrelevant in that case. Unlike my example
    1
  507.  @mabussubam512  holy shit, man. It's been most part of the year and you still stand vigil in the comments section. That's what I call tenacity
    1
  508.  @davedrewett2196  > your whole conversation is irrelevant to the topic I addressed quite opposite >If you want to talk about Sweden I was talking about choice that the Swedes made while in a situation similar to the Finns
    1
  509. ​ @davedrewett2196  > no you didn’t. yes I did >All you did was pose the question “ what about Sweden “ that’s all you know perfectly well that this is not true. We talked about neutrality topic until you suddenly remembered Republic of Ireland > Like I said if you want to have your own narrative about Sweden you know perfectly well, that my narrative wasn't about Sweden specifically, but about the choice of staying neutral. The choice, which, as you say, Finland did not have
    1
  510. Simon Davidsson >why Finland didnt put everything they had into the continuation war maybe because Finns saw that war wasn't proceeding as good as they hoped?
    1
  511.  @pebo8306  from rifles. German machineguns used rifle ammo
    1
  512. Germans are the Protoss and Soviet are Terrans
    1
  513.  @yulusleonard985  >By contrast the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG. every soviet platoon had DP-27
    1
  514.  @yulusleonard985  ROFL. Why then germans had SMG's in rifle platoons?
    1
  515.  @yulusleonard985  and people with SMG in soviet platoons were ammo carriers for DP
    1
  516.  @yulusleonard985  > Lol half of them? why not? > there are only two ammo carrier in German platoon and they were armed with Kar-98, not with SMG ;) So, again - why germans had SMG's in their platoons? > If that true then DP 27 is the worst mg ever since it need six men to run it properly. MG-34 need a whole squad to run it properly ;) You said that yourself
    1
  517.  @yulusleonard985  >because German ammo carrier is not a combat unit. They are armed with smg not combat rifle. German ammo carriers were combat units and were armed with Kar 98 > You can check Military History Visualized on German infantry tacti you can check MHV yourself. Ammo carriers were armed with Kar-98 and they were combat units > if they do carry rifle it means they run out of smg nope. It means they were armed with rifles from the start > Which is the reason why they can enjoy high kill ratio when compared to smg centric late war soviet infantry tactic, caused by their inability to equip every platoon with MG Every soviet platoon had one or two DP-27. Germans "enjoyed" high "kill ratio" because they starved millions prisoners of war to death. So it goes And, again, you failed to explain, why germans had SMG's in their platoons
    1
  518.  @yulusleonard985  >The only guy in combat platoon who have business carrying SMG are their ammo carrier obviously, you didn't checked MHV video on the structure of German SQUAD ;) Ammo carriers were armed with Kar 98 >If you see one carrying mp-40 they are not in rifle company tell me you made that up. Please. >And if they have at least one dp 27 for every platoon they don't have to do that stupid half smg half rifle setup. why? >Im pretty sure even Glantz wrote that they only have one mg per company he was talking about heavy MG
    1
  519.  @yulusleonard985  >The only person who have bussines to carry smg are the ammo carrier or CO/NCO. ammo carrier carries Kar 98. Check MHV video ;) >the soviet practice half rifle half mg exist to make up lack of MG in squad & platoon level. there were no half rifle/half smg in squad or platoon. Check MHV video ;)
    1
  520.  @yulusleonard985  > the German standard rifle, even the Squad leader, yet around 1941 he was issued a MP40 submachine gun with 6 magazines of 32 shots each. yep. Squad leader. Ammo carriers and squad leader were three different persons ;) >At that level they have dedicated ammo carrier. and they also were armed with Kar 98 ;) >He havent reach late war soviet army. i'll lend you a hand https://www.battleorder.org/ussr-rifle-co-1944 try and find "half rifle/half SMG" organization :D >they never reach one mg per squad in 1941, in 1945, even post war. Don't be ridiculous. You know nothing about Red Army except some information from youtube videos you failed to understand :D
    1
  521.  @yulusleonard985  >even within article you linked if you total the number of smg and rifle it will be about 50-50 you failed to notice that every section had 1 or 2 LMG ;) And that SMG's were concentrated in specialized unit. Which also had LMG :D >The British/German/American perform better with only one MG. how do you checked that? We already established that you know nothing about WW2 except some videos you failed to understand ;) >That diagram most likely the ideal figure not actual inventory so, where you got that "half rifle, half SMG", then? ;) >This article said at the end of the war the ratio for LMG is 1:22.2 I don't know, where you get that number. Because article states "If the rifle company in July 1941 till States has 6 machine guns, a year later - 12 hand, at 1943 year - 1 easel and 18 machine guns, and in December 44 of the year - 2 easel and 12 hand." >And after the war they have to build that redundant SKS because they still suffer from MG shortage. ROFL. You so funny. SKS were meant to replace Mosin rifles >Even if you try to spin it that ammo carrier carry rifle, the fact they use SMG as PDW stand Fact? You said yourself that ammo carriers were armed with Kar 98. What's wrong with your memory, pal? >And ammo carrier in organization list you linked actually only carry a pistol nope. He carried a rifle
    1
  522. ​ @yulusleonard985  > Im pretty sure if by the end of the war the ratio of 1 lmg for every 22 men they are bound to have smg-mosin 50-50 split. I'm pretty sure that your statement have zero logic > basically some platoon have two instead 6 and the unlucky ony have one. basically your statement have zero logic >You said that. YOU said that. Remember, "Initially all men besides the machine gunner and his assistant were equipped with the “Karabiner 98 kurz”, the German standard rifle, even the Squad leader, yet around 1941 he was issued a MP40 submachine gun with 6 magazines of 32 shots each"? "All men besides machine gunner and his assistant" includes ammo carriers :D >Also what the relevance about this question btw? I'm waiting for you to admit that you wrote bullshit when you claimed that only ammo carriers were armed with SMG's :D
    1
  523.  @yulusleonard985  > so I like reality why do you continue to contradict reality, then? >If someone say something like the ratio each platoon have 6 lmg next year 12 lmg, next year 1 hmg and so on its more like the ideal not the realization. it's more like realization. More machineguns made means more machineguns in rifle company. Dead simple >While his statement like in a regiment of 2398 people they have 108 lmg and 54 hmg is more like total average And? >And his statement like in Crimean operation in 1944 one hmg/lmg per 43 men is the reality. Per "human personnel". Not per "fighter" . Of course you aren't capable to realize that military units were not entirely comprised from rifle platoons, despite the links I provided :D >So from those three informations I can pull a conclusion that the average HMG/LMG in each platoon is one or two. You making a progress. Remember, you were talking about "the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG". But you aren't capable to understand the words you reading, so you drawing the wrong conclusion >That would be super embarrassing. nope. See, you aren't capable to realize that war is more than one rifle platoon fighting another >Assistant machine gunner is ammo carrier. nope. Look at MHV site, the link you provided. >Never said that. I said SMG in German army are pdw, carried by anyone have no bussines with combat. " German ammo carrier is not a combat unit. They are armed with smg not combat rifle."(c) BOOM! HEADSHOT! Looks like you have troubles with long-term memory
    1
  524.  @yulusleonard985  >2398/108 I already done my calculator job, your turn. 42 >Yes, it even more embarrassing if you have tanks, altilery, air superiority etc even economically supported by American and yet still suffer disproportionate casualty. i don't see how number of combat vs non-combat troops in military unit connected to that. But I'm a generous guy and will continue to teach you history lessons. You see, USSR didn't had artillery or air superiority. It was quite opposite >My explanation is they only have 1-2 mg each platoon as written in the article so they always have hard time. but we already established that you know little about WW2, so your explanations are explanations of man little versed >I wonder what is this supposed to do with smg argument? It shows level of your knowledge about things you are trying to reason. Close to nonexistent > You ask me irrelevant question I answer it on the fly "On the fly" - that's a good characterization about all you comments :D >I wait you to finish your calculator job about counting 2398 divided by 108. I wait for you to admit that your statement that not every soviet rifle platoon had a machine gun was false
    1
  525.  @yulusleonard985  >Yikes that lower than my 22.2, one lmg for every 42 men? nope. Just 42. >Im pretty sure we are talking one year after Kursk when air superiority switch and lack of truck hamper German altillery superiority. it not surprising that you are wrong >Thats rich from someone who know nothing about casualty. you cannot rate my level of knowledge of casualty. Because, as we already established, you make all your comments "on the fly" :D >That depends from your counting skill of 2389/108. nope. That depends on your skill to to admit that you was wrong. Try it will be easy. You already admitted that soviet rifle platoons had at least one MG. Just write "I was wrong, I made it on the fly"
    1
  526.  @yulusleonard985  >I always said that from the beginning. " By contrast the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG." Long-term memory problems, amirite?
    1
  527. concentration camps in East Karelia for ethnic russians were justified? Good, good
    1
  528. >I would say the normal situation was - "suppress and move" than "run close and rain bullets" you suppress with artillery and then move close and rain bullets
    1
  529.  @stinkypete891  nope. It's your universe. Cause you continue to raise the topic of Stalin ;)
    1
  530.  @stinkypete891  We agreed that Sweden saved all from Germany, aren't we?
    1
  531.  @stinkypete891  Sweden saved all from Germany. Ball bearings, remember?
    1
  532.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings beat lend-lease
    1
  533.  @stinkypete891  and ball bearings saved all
    1
  534. >Finland had 10 times more airfields than they had aircraft for. nope >Soviet territory exchange offer was so generous that refusal to accept it, could only mean that Finland has ambitious plans of their own regarding Soviet territories. that's bullshit
    1
  535.  @elchinpirbabayev5757  I don't need to convince you. It is YOU who should convince people that your bullshit stories have some connection with reality.
    1
  536. I think, people of Finland could blame "them" for wasting their lives for nothing >but they weren't the same as Germany or Japan. really? Germany had annexed parts too. How can you blame Germany then?
    1
  537. >Last point, one just can´t trust stalin, at all! Yes, that treacherous man withdrew Soviet troops from Hankoniemi before land lease agreement was ended
    1
  538. > where the safest line of defence would have been on the border established after Winter War > a stronger defense position to stop future oppressions from Soviet Russians any sane man would know, that no "defense position" could protect Finland in fight one to one with USSR
    1
  539.  @Leperzco  >Russian civilians in East Karelia were placed in internment camps not concentration camps can you spell the difference? >Finnish camps for Russian civilians were not extermination camps but for internment. of course it comforted the dead
    1
  540.  @Leperzco  >those troops did not participated to hostilities against Soviet Union before Continuation War who cares? That were the enemy troops, and Finland housed them.
    1
  541. >there wasn't even a drop of anti-semitism here why Lithuanians started killing Jews from first days of occupation, then? >many people turned against jewish people because of propaganda and just to get some bread https://ru.delfi.lt/news/live/professor-obyasnil-pochemu-v-litve-nacistam-ne-potrebovalis-gazovye-kamery.d?id=77102635 it's may be interesting to you
    1
  542.  @anttihuttunen3324  check your facts. There was a story with people, who lived in the region of Suommussalmi
    1
  543. >loosely associated power ROFLMAO. Finland military cooperation with Germany was better than with many Axis powers
    1
  544.  @jussim.konttinen4981  who 'they'? "Honest people of St Petersburg"? Live under Finnish rule? Cool story, bro
    1
  545.  @jussim.konttinen4981  >However, the St. Petersburg-Helsinki train carries about 480,000 passengers a year. what it has to do with "honest people in St Petersburg today, more than likely they would prefer to live under Finish rule"?
    1
  546.  @jussim.konttinen4981  what it has to do with "honest people in St Petersburg today, more than likely they would prefer to live under Finish rule"?
    1
  547.  @alexanderchenf1  >There was a reason why the Slavic countries in the old days prefer importing western rulers yes. They knew nothing and nobody and could easily be manipulated by local elites
    1