Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Was Finland's "Continuation War" Pre-Planned? Eastern Front #WW2" video.

  1. that's a gem of a comment. Bit too late, though
    27
  2. I'd say that loosing quite a lot of Finnish man for nothing was a wrong doing
    23
  3.  @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
  4. ​ @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
  5.  @michealohaodha9351  and somehow all those Finns who died without any meaning but greed of their government will be resurrected?
    11
  6.  @michealohaodha9351  for the Soviets it was a defensive war. So, they had no hand in that
    11
  7.  @horatio8213  strangely, 'neutral Finland' provided troops to attack Murmansk. Look 'Operation Silberfuchs'
    10
  8.  @scosprey  so, saying things that contradicts your beliefs makes me a troll, huh?
    8
  9. >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
  10. ​ @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
  11.  @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
  12.  @michealohaodha9351  so, no resurrection for Finns, send to their deaths by their corrupt power-hungry government?
    7
  13. >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
  14. ​ @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
  15.  @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
  16. ​ @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
  17. ​ @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
  18.  @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
  19. because Finland had no means for active offensive operations?
    4
  20. >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
  21.  @jaccexx7565  >you are so deluded prove me wrong, please. Or you just have nothing except beliefs?
    4
  22.  @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
  23.  @jaccexx7565  so, no clear answer, just emotions. Got it
    4
  24. 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
  25.  @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
  26.  @dobypilgrim6160  >With no Mannerheim Line, it would have been a cake walk facepalm. Finns held quite good when Mannerheim line was lost.
    4
  27. 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
  28.  @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
  29.  @popsey72  Finnish occupation placed ethnic Russians in concentration camps. Children, sick and old. Try and ignore that fact
    4
  30.  @seanmac1793  to help them do what - capture some of SU territory?
    4
  31.  @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
  32. >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
  33. really? Was Finland so precious to Germany or to USSR to capture it?
    3
  34.  @ohhibob1006  but how are they related to Finland? >Finland also received demands to take key defensive locations nope
    3
  35. ​ @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
  36. >considering the unjust land grab on the part of the Russians so, land grab on the part of the Finns was just?
    3
  37. >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
  38. >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
  39. >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
  40. >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
  41. > 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
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45. you prefer Khrushchev claims over real data?
    3
  46. nothing. They had no means to do anything serious
    3
  47. ​ @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
  48. >The choice wasn't necessarily popular but it had to be one or the other or he third
    3
  49.  @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
  50.  @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
  51. when you see that one superpower are going to attack another and you offer help in hope to gain some territories
    3
  52. ​ @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
  53. > 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
  54.  @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
  55. ​@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
  56. how so?
    2
  57.  @villesorjonen5779  how your country will loose without nazis?
    2
  58.  @villesorjonen5779  are you drunk or high?
    2
  59.  @villesorjonen5779  I know enough. But I really can't get any meaning from your words
    2
  60. >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
  61.  @mariusvladu2041  remember Munchen my friend
    2
  62.  @mariusvladu2041  Munchen says that Russia wasn't in any way unique
    2
  63.  @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
  64.  @SerAkel  naval operations such as mine laying are planned and prepared well ahead. So, finnish navy was ready for aggressive actions.
    2
  65.  @popsey72  "blocked and reported", huh ;)
    2
  66.  @bobbleheadelvis6607  Nope. I don't remember anything particularly bad coming to Finland after that and before June of 1941
    2
  67. ​@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
  68.  @VIItut  you forgot to take your meds, pal
    2
  69.  @mabussubam512  >Is what you're saying in a nutshell. bullshit, I can't hear you
    2
  70. > 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
  71.  @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
  72.  @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
  73.  @vaahtobileet  where did you get that bullshit?
    2
  74. >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
  75.  @Anthus.  Yes. German people in wermacht uniform, living in military bases in Finland
    2
  76. >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
  77.  @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
  78.  @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
  79. and what USA could've do in that case?
    2
  80.  @rodafowa1279  did they invade Sweden? LOL at your 'objection'
    2
  81.  @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
  82.  @BimBam69526  because USSR didn't want to annex Finland?
    2
  83. UK and US generally didn't give a shit about Finland at the time
    2
  84. 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
  85.  @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
  86. ROFL. You are funny guy
    2
  87.  @Jokakutihut1  no, only funny ones. Good for my written English
    2
  88. >aka Soviet captured Vyborg by storm so, there wasn't assault and street fights in Vyborg. Good, good
    2
  89. ​ @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
  90. ​ @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
  91.  @horatio8213  Finland wasn't neutral before Barbarossa, you said it yourself. So it ends here
    2
  92. ​ @horatio8213  stop making things up
    2
  93. >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
  94. Ann Onymous >ALL of Russia's neighbors HATE Russia. Fact. some delirious bullshit, lol
    2
  95.  @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
  96. >Finns get their ass kicked six ways from sunday Mannerheim: SHEEEEEEEIIIIIIITTTTT
    2
  97.  @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
  98. they wanted to take some more
    2
  99. >Because if we didnt... There's a very good chance that my native language these days would be russian, not finnish. Is there?
    2
  100.  @niki75  > Had the USSR attacked us again were there any signs?
    2
  101. ​ @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
  102. ​ @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
  103. > 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
  104.  @hopeinen5287  Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal - they all stayed neutral.
    2
  105. >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
  106.  @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
  107.  @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
  108.  @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
  109. ​ @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
  110. ​ @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
  111. ​ @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
  112. ​ @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
  113.  @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
  114. > 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
  115. ​ @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
  116. > 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
  117.  @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
  118.  @tonks-gaming  'orders'? What about 'preparations'?
    2
  119.  @TheWersum  AFAIR, Germans didn't placed Russians in concentration camps indiscriminately. Not like you know who
    2
  120.  @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
  121. >more than likely they would prefer to live under Finish rule than under Russian rule. cool story, bro
    2
  122. 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
  123.  @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
  124. ​ @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
  125. ​ @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
  126. ​ @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
  127.  @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
  128. ​ @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
  129. ​@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
  130.  @mariusvladu2041  >but the real event who realy start WWII was Ribentrop=Molotov pact o'rly? Did chinese and japanese agree on that?
    1
  131.  @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
  132.  @mariusvladu2041  >Of course they attacked earlier but that pact help them a lot So, you ignore the facts :D
    1
  133.  @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
  134.  @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
  135.  @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
  136.  @mariusvladu2041  nope
    1
  137.  @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
  138. billions of people. Communists(Russians) killed billions of people. That's common knowledge
    1
  139. There was quite a peaceful outcome out of Winter war
    1
  140.  @arvopohja7693  >Whole period was constant aggressive violence towards finland. anything particularly bad? > huge amount for small nation 25 thousands? Really?
    1
  141. ​ @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
  142.  Mauri Mela  > wikipedia at least. It's obvious that he has no slight of information on the topic
    1
  143.  @watgaming9479  Soviet Union also had naval base in Finland - and look what happened to them
    1
  144.  @ohhibob1006  and you know it from?
    1
  145.  @ohhibob1006  how are they related to Finland?
    1
  146.  @vaahtobileet  i'm talking about the fact that USSR didn't demand 'key defensive locations'. Hanko was not a 'key defensive location'
    1
  147.  @mabussubam512  go play, kiddo
    1
  148.  @mabussubam512  that is only comment you deserve. Go play
    1
  149. >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
  150.  @apilolomi  slowpoke.jpg
    1
  151. >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
  152. >yet I stood up to a tyrant you choose to side with one tyrant against another? Great choice, man!
    1
  153.  @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
  154.  @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
  155.  @ernestcote3398  I don't see any connections here
    1
  156.  @ernestcote3398  sorry, but in that case Poland should have been less aggressive
    1
  157.  @ernestcote3398  to neighbouring countries. You really don't know history of early 20th century Poland, do you?
    1
  158.  @ernestcote3398  so, you have not studied, but you know very well? Of course
    1
  159.  @KuopassaTv  I don't see tendencies to such behavior until the end of 1941
    1
  160. >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
  161.  @timomastosalo  >So attacking Finland Stalin got what he feared: German troops in Finland. he didn't feared German troops in Finland particularly.
    1
  162. ​ @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
  163.  @bobbleheadelvis6607  as I said, people still chewing old cold war western bullshit propaganda. So, unbiased video on the topic wouldn't harm anyone
    1
  164. >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
  165. >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
  166. ​ @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
  167.  @robowarrior2126  >here are no "good guys" and "bad guys" tell that to the Finns in the comments section
    1
  168. >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
  169. >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
  170.  @DeagláinÓCathail  Britain is an island. They have England and Scotland and Whales though
    1
  171. > 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
  172.  @FXxcRxK0ka  Finns tell that they were mobilizing to attack, and had German troops and equipment in their country. Simple as that
    1
  173.  Tabourba  difference is that Finnish troops participated in German unit destined to attack Murmansk
    1
  174. third option - stay neutral
    1
  175. > Ultimately they were directly threatened by the Soviets how so?
    1
  176.  @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
  177.  @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
  178.  @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
  179. @Sami Sund "saved you from communism"? Then, why Mannerheim turned against Finland saviors?
    1
  180. wow. I thought y'all "Soviet Union were planning on invading Europe." guys were dead
    1
  181.  @arvopohja7693  they "invaded" Europe?
    1
  182. @Leif saying or writing outright bullshit doesn't confirms anything
    1
  183. @Leif i didn't said or wrote any bullshit at all. Whaddayamean?
    1
  184. @Leif yes. but I didn't wrote bullshit of any kind here
    1
  185.  @alanpennie8013  They had troubles flattening Germany while flying from England. I don't see how they could do that to Helsinki
    1
  186. >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
  187. what nickel?
    1
  188.  @desmondanderson665  yes, but nickel in Petsamo belonged to USSR, as far as i remember
    1
  189.  @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
  190.  @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
  191.  @arvopohja7693  poor, poor finns. They had no free will, unlike they sweden neighbors
    1
  192. > 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
  193.  @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
  194.  @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
  195. >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
  196. ​ @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
  197. Mainila wasn't used as a pretext for war. Just so you to know
    1
  198.  @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
  199.  @BimBam69526  Finland's goal was to occupy territories of Soviet Union
    1
  200.  @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
  201. > 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
  202.  @w.1.-du9gs  don't remember Petrozavodsk ever belonging to Finland
    1
  203. >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
  204.  @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
  205.  @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
  206.  @The_Original_Default_Username  I recommend you to read more. Some modern research by credible authors, not 40 year old processed propaganda products
    1
  207.  @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
  208.  @apilolomi  you can see with what? Obviously you don't have eyes on your ass of a head
    1
  209.  @apilolomi  maybe you have eyes on your palms?
    1
  210. >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
  211. ​ @xKuukkelix  we are talking about Continuation war here, are we not?
    1
  212.  @horatio8213  so, you are confirming that Finland wasn't neutral and was preparing to attack Soviet Union alongside Germany? Good
    1
  213.  @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
  214.  @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
  215.  @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
  216. >Soviet lost 250000 killed and about 600000 wounded. LOLWUT?
    1
  217. So, german troops, stationed in Finland before Barbarossa, would go home unless bombings happened?
    1
  218.  @heikkisallinen9012  to made Finland to push them out of the country?
    1
  219.  @heikkisallinen9012  Molotov asked
    1
  220.  @heikkisallinen9012  perhaps. Or perhaps not
    1
  221.  @heikkisallinen9012  your compatriots in the comments think otherwise
    1
  222.  @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
  223.  @w.1.-du9gs  lol. Check out what Lapua movement was
    1
  224. yes, revenge and some Karelia
    1
  225.  @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
  226.  @QuizmasterLaw  but there is no 'facts', there is only your fantasies. Like "Auschwitz methods were taken up from the Cheka"
    1
  227.  @QuizmasterLaw  lead me? To noting that you make things up
    1
  228. >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
  229.  @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
  230.  @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
  231.  @popsey72  'our side' achieved survival. There was no future for 'untermenchen' in nazi's world
    1
  232.  @Killjoy45  you can't learn it yourself and had to turn to strangers in comment section for an explanation?
    1
  233.  @watgaming9479  because USSR didn't wanted their independence, maybe?
    1
  234.  @Jansk1h  could you be more specific?
    1
  235.  @scorpionWhite  Finland won it's Independence in 1941? Really?
    1
  236.  @scorpionWhite  sorry, but it's a bullshit, based only on a stories from Germans, without any evidence that could back it up
    1
  237.  @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
  238.  @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
  239.  @scorpionWhite  > yes, Russia was threatened and tried to conquer it again really? When?
    1
  240.  @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
  241.  @scorpionWhite  >two episodes of the same aim of Russia nope. You should learn some real history, for your own good
    1
  242.  @scorpionWhite  > You mean "history" of Stalin and Butin, nope. I mean actual history. Not those semi-digested myths that decompose inside your skull
    1
  243.  @scorpionWhite  I'm talking about real history. You - retelling cold war era myths you barely remember. That's all on that subject
    1
  244.  sakatt41  bla-bla-bla
    1
  245.  @kallekonttinen1738  yes "what"? You think that German-Finnish military cooperation was comparable to that between USSR and Germany?
    1
  246.  @kallekonttinen1738  something at the level of Unternehmen Silberfuchs?
    1
  247.  @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
  248.  @kallekonttinen1738  so, I really can't see how you can compare Finnish-German and Soviet-German cooperation and say that it was 'similar'.
    1
  249.  @kallekonttinen1738  yes. And units of democratic Finland fought alongside units of dictatorial Germany.
    1
  250.  @verticallogic5909  so, Finland is Russia? Okay
    1
  251.  @michealohaodha9351  compare the old border with new one in 1942
    1
  252. ​ @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
  253. >as help them defend against the inevitable strike of the evil empire inevitable? Really?
    1
  254. >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
  255. > 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
  256.  @bige1106  ​ yes, Stalin stated that he wouldn't take shit from Germany.
    1
  257. >A victim cannot be an aggressor. why?
    1
  258.  @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
  259.  @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
  260. >But again, there were no such luxuries. strangely, Sweden had such luxury
    1
  261. >and maybe a few other small pieces i bet, those 'small pieces' were bigger than your country
    1
  262.  @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
  263. enough for Molotov to raise that question in Berlin
    1
  264. >nothing more Then, why they claimed Petrozawodsk?
    1
  265.  @kallegran7225  looks more like an a rule, than a exception. Quite comparable to russians
    1
  266.  @kallegran7225  why USSR will need more Finnish territory?
    1
  267.  @kallegran7225  yep, and they got all they wanted
    1
  268. >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
  269.  @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
  270.  @JM-dw8eq  idk. Ask @dbassman27 and @Corporal Shephard
    1
  271.  @Dasistrite  > 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
  272. >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
  273. ​ @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
  274. ​ @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
  275. ​ @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
  276. Sorry, but Lenin promised nothing except what was given by Tartu treaty
    1
  277.  @allualex2606  Yeah, sure. It is worth nothing, though, that Baltics and Western Ukraine also had guerrilla movements. 'Had' is the keyword here
    1
  278.  @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
  279.  @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
  280.  @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
  281. >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
  282.  @romangl9070  did what? Cut Murmansk railroad line?
    1
  283.  @romangl9070  yes, but it wasn't their will
    1
  284. ​ @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
  285. > Everyone knew that Russians will return and try to annex Finland once again. How so?
    1
  286. operation Silberfuchs, Finnish troops under German command - rings a bell?
    1
  287. ​ @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
  288.  @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
  289. 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
  290. >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
  291. >They had no choice about sides. what about Swedes?
    1
  292.  @lauriruukki5702  did they go to war?
    1
  293.  @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
  294.  @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
  295.  @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
  296.  @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
  297. ​ @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
  298. 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
  299. concentration camps in East Karelia for ethnic russians were justified? Good, good
    1
  300. >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
  301.  @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
  302. 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
  303. >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
  304.  @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
  305.  @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
  306.  @anttihuttunen3324  check your facts. There was a story with people, who lived in the region of Suommussalmi
    1
  307.  @jussim.konttinen4981  who 'they'? "Honest people of St Petersburg"? Live under Finnish rule? Cool story, bro
    1
  308.  @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
  309.  @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
  310.  @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