*Pinned Comment* Part of the reason I wanted to look into this topic was because I’m working on a Courland Pocket 1944 documentary, which will be out very soon. Finland realises the game is up in late 1944 as Army Group North struggles to hold onto the Baltic. Finland may, or may not, be one of the reasons Army Group North gets trapped in the Courland Pocket, so I thought it was worth exploring the reasons why Finland went to war in the first place. I have begun editing Courland, and I’m hoping to have the first episode out either next Monday or the Monday after. Currently all my focus and effort is going into making that series as good as it possibly can be. *Selected Sources* (These were the most relevant) Lunde, H. "Finland's War of Choice: The Troubled German-Finnish Coalition in World War II." Casemate Publishers, 2011. Trotter, W. "The Winter War: The Russo-Finnish War of 1939-40." Aurum Press Ltd, 2003. Wuorinen, J. “Finland and World War II, 1939-1944.” Pickle Partners Publishing, 2015. Ziemke, E. “The German Northern Theatre of Operations: 1940-1945.” Pickle Partners Publishing, Kindle 2014 (original 1956). Zeimke, E. “From Stalingrad to Berlin: The Illustrated Edition.” Pen & Sword, Kindle 2014. “Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV/I, The Attack on the Soviet Union.” Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt (Research Institute for Military History) Potsdam, Germany. Oxford University Press, 2015. The full list of my history books (currently 333) docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit?usp=sharing Thanks for watching!
Ok interesting. I am from Latvia and I am interested in Courland Pocket and seeing you make documentary about is so awesome. Did you also use Latvian sources?
Unfortunately, I've been limited to English sources. I'm very much aware of the problems of the sources I've used (mainly pro-German) and have tried to compensate, but the reality is that Courland is not really a popular subject in the west and therefore few people have written much on it. My German isn't good enough yet to utilize their sources, and the Soviets wrote practically nothing on the 6 Battles as they saw them as a shideshow to the main event - Berlin. Luckily, Hunt's "Blood in the Forest" has done a good job on describing the Latvians caught in the middle of the conflict, so I intend to lean upon him a little.
@@TheImperatorKnight Ok then. There are few personal accounts of Latvian soldiers. It is quite popular topic here also I can help if you need any translation from Latvian.
@Michael Ellis Nah, it's not particularly feasible being sandwiched between two ideologically opposite nations, poised for war. Danes tried it, Norway tried it. Ended up occupied. Admittedly, there was a sentiment in the government, that if we can take back what was stolen from us, and drive the Soviets from Hanko at the same time, well... Not a bad deal at all! 👍
@Michael Ellis Your argument has only 1 flaw, it is that we don't know what might have happened if we had not joined in continuation war. Finland has been independent over 100 years and we are doing fine now. So the continuation war had a positive outcome. This argument is only my imagination product but I guess that reason why the soviet let us stay independent was: Stalin was a warlord, mass murderer, psychopath, crazy person who (loved to/was good at) killing his own people. He was impressed by how good Finnish people were killing soviets (his people) so he decided to honor us and let us stay as a nation. I really see this being the reason why Finland stayed independent as likely as your idea that Finland did not need to start a continuation war.
The Stalin bid was a joke😂 But seriously you can't know what night have happend if we had not allied with Germany, we got food ammunition artillery and air support from Germany in ww2, sold nikkel other stuff to Germany and so our economy and defens were so join together with Germany that no one knows how things would have happend had we not allied with Germany. You tell me what finland sould have done when 1 nation try to conquer them and after peace you belive that the peace treaty was not worth the paper it was written on. Stay alone and try to stay neutral like Norway Denmark Holland. Also other Baltic state (finland was thought as Baltic state at that time) ANNEXATION HAPEND AFTER WINTER War. Would you be afreid? As I already said you have no idea what might have happened.
2:44 Mistake: that 12% population was evacuated and was resettled to western Finland 3:33 Transit was for German occupation forces in Norway. 4:01 Defense pact with Finland and Sweden was agreed but Stalin scared Swedes to withdraw. 9:00 This "innocence" argument is weird. The transit agreement was publicly arranged as a deliberate counter against very public Soviet aggressive pressuring -Lunde is a sensationalist journalist trying to "imply" things. This Lundes "conspiracy revelation"-nonsense is part of it. Finns had agreed to join the war requiring that there is " a direct Soviet provocation"- this is a well known historical fact. 18:18 There was a "historic" claim in form of 1919-1920 unofficial annexation by Finland 19:50 Missing the point. Finlands grant strategy was calculated opportunism. Not just exploit a German victory but also secure Finlands future in Nazi dominated Neuropa. And if Soviets are not defeated quickly it is time for plan B, and plan C if Soviets start winning. 21:40 There had been plans. These were cancelled after Germans failed to overrun Leningrad- plan B was on. The general idea at that point was just to conserve forces and secure defensive positions. 22:00 That was a German plan. Ryti gave direct "Halte Befehl" on behalf of Finns( Rytis letter to Mannerheim Nov. 5. 1941 ) 22:12 Mistake: No Finns on Murmansk sector 24:00 You completely missed the target. Finland had to choose side in 1941 because the Germans were already in the country. Neutrality was no longer an option. There was no exit strategy because there was no entry strategy. It was just a matter of making most of a situation as it evolved.
@@pizzapatriot1769 There is not much literature on this subject in English. One book that has been discussed in Finland is "Der finnische Krieg" by Waldemar Erfurth. The entire 1070-page diary is kept in the National Archives of Finland.
@@pizzapatriot1769 In addition, each company kept a journal. The Continuation War is pretty well documented in Finnish. Easier if you tell us the specific thing you're looking for.
Also I want to mention that your map "The Northern Front" is missing one crusial detail. Soviets made alternate railway to Murmansk from the east so cutting the railway from Petroskoi effected little to flow of western support. I remember this because my grandfather served as a sergeant in Finnish infantry in those troops that cut the railway.
Finland here (also worked in the Infantry museum) and I've never heard anyone making the case, that we were the victims in continuation war. Continuation war is almost universally considered justified, but we were absolutely the aggressor. Just waited for Soviets to declare war. Also we mined the gulf of Finland a week or so beforehand, so Red Navy can't get out of the ports. I will mention though, that Finland considered this a separate war in the same conflict. Finland was never part of the German war of extermination, rather we were partners with common foe.
@@adaw2d3222 Ahhhm, I would absolutely want to see a source on that, as I heard pretty much exactly the opposite from a bunch of people. The wikipedia page "History of the Jews in Finland" mentions 8 Austrian Jews, that were indeed sent to Germany, but this clearly seems to have been a singular instance and not in accordance with the overall Finnish policy towards Jews.
@@adaw2d3222 finland sent six jews to germany. That is of course too much. The finnish jews fought alongside all other finns against soviets, and a few were offered even iron cross. They refused of course.
@@adaw2d3222 I'm sure hundreds of them died. They chose the wrong country to attack. Only one was born in Finland. 6 were unlucky immigrants. At that time there was a strict immigration policy. And Vyborg Synagogue was completely destroyed by Soviet air bombings on the first day of Winter War.
@@adaw2d3222 No they absolutely did not! They also kept their Jewish soldiers in service and explicitly refused to participate in anti-Jewish activities. Show proof. Fool.
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
In my mind, Finland used the Nazis against the Soviet Union just as we used the Soviet Union against the Nazis. It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows, but so does war. It's easy to sit and say what was the right thing to do when you aren't being threatened by a superpower. In the 1st Soviet-Finnish war everybody condemned what the Soviets were doing but did not help much. During the Continuation War the Allies were allied with the Soviets, not leaving the Finns much choice.
@@roberthansen5727 , how so, please expand as it is the same, each side decided to make a pact with one devil to fight the other devil, do you have a different take on that? If so, please expand upon it.
2:35 Soviet Union didn't annex 12 % of Finland's population, pretty much everyone was evacuated away from Karelia to other parts of Finland. That's the percentage that previously lived in the annexed territories though. 3:50 Finland and Sweden actually tried to form a defense union but the Soviets opposed it (later Germany would oppose it as well) and it was scuttled when the Soviets pressured Finland and Sweden diplomatically by informing Finland that such a union would be in breach of the Moscow peace treaty. With Denmark and Norway having been conquered by Germany, Finland really had no great power to turn to besides Germany. The Soviets also shot down a Finnish airliner, Kaleva, in June after they had occupied the Baltic states. If Finland had refused any cooperation with Germany at this point, it's very likely that Finland could've been attacked by both Germany and the Soviet Union when Barbarossa broke out (Germany might've wanted to use the Isthmus to attack Leningrad and the Soviets would've moved in to secure it). Germany would've likely moved in to Petsamo to secure the nickel mines as well. By reconquering Karelia themselves, Finland could stop before Leningrad and not participate in the siege, and thus hedge their bets in case the war didn't go their way (this clearly worked since the Allies didn't demand unconditional surrender from Finland like they did from every other German ally). So staying out of the war was nigh impossible. With these choices, pivoting towards Germany for military and economic aid (without German food supplies, mass starvation would've been likely in 1942) is the obvious choice since at least they hadn't just attempted to conquer Finland. In the German-Soviet Axis talks (9:40) the Soviets made their desires clear about wanting to finish off Finland (which would've lead to mass executions of the Finnish leadership and mass deportations to Siberia for the general populace by the NKVD , the treatment would've certainly been harsher than that of the Baltics because of the Finnish resistance in the Winter War). No doubt this information made its way to Finland via Germany at some point. 23:41 Finland fought a war against a common enemy with their own separate strategic objectives, if this isn't the case, why didn't Finland participate in the siege of Leningrad and fully commit to cutting the Murmansk railway?
The regular assumption of why Mannerheim didn't want to attack Leningrad or cut the railway was that he was convinced Russia would still be around after the war and doing either of those would be seen as unforgivable by Russia later on. Maybe he was right and this was why the USSR agreed to a separate peace with Finland in 1944. It's also notable that the USSR did not demand that Mannerheim be tried as a war criminal after the war, maybe these things are connected somehow. The reason Mannerheim gave to the Germans was that he had already sustained too many casualties and saw those operations as too expensive.
Superb analysis. I concur completely. What is your opinion on the lack of defensive fortification after the initial stabilization of the lines along the Soviet border? I think it was a virtually criminal lack of preparation for the ultimate counterattack.
@@chefren77 Yes, that and the defensive victories in summer of 1944 probably convinced the Soviet Union that occupying Finland would be too costly. Besides, at that point all the forces were needed for the drive to Berlin. USA and UK also pressured to give special treatment for Finland.
@@dobypilgrim6160 Well one was lack of manpower (after the initial attack phase, the Finnish army demobilized much of the elder cohorts back to their farms to secure food production) so there weren't enough workers to go around. Mannerheim also committed a huge strategic miscalculation and gave far too much importance to Eastern Karelia where he sent far too many workers and fortification supplies. He thought that conquered area could be used as a valuable bargaining chip in the peace negotiations and wanted to hold to it dearly. In reality of course, those bunkers were abandoned without much of a fight since those divisions had to be quickly transferred to the Isthmus where the main thrust of the Soviet attack came. In general, Mannerheim also believed that the Soviet Union wouldn't bother with Finland until after they had knocked out Germany and that Finland's fate would be decided at a later date (presumably through some negotiations with the Allies). This is despite all of the intel that clearly pointed to a Grand Offensive. This intel also wasn't highlighted enough at HQ and with Mannerheim's way of playing favorites, few dared to raise the issue as much as it should've been. Mannerheim was not a pleasant superior to be around and he made sure no one questioned his authority.
Hi, I am a Finnish history enthusiasts so this topic is very close to my heart. You managed to understand a Finnish situation in 1940-41 very well. Best analysis done by foreigner that I have seen. Couple points I wish to add. This debate about Finland's cooperation with Germany pre Barbarossa is an very old one. Pre 1991 even established historians in Finland wanted to downplay it. Current position among historians is that offcourse we cooperated and this debate about who gave permission etc. is ridicilous. In summer 1940 wast majority (90-95%) of Finns wanted somebody to help us. When you are drowning in Ocean you don't debate is motive of your savior pure or not. We were glad to be with Germany. 400 000 Karelian people wanted their homes back. Other thing I want to add is this talk that Soviets started hostilities against Finns first in 1941. Offcourse they didn't. German Stukas were bombing Leningrad from Utti airport in southern Finland from the first day of Barbarossa. Soviet counter bombings just gave Finnish goverment excuse to join the attack. We wanted to take our 1940 lost areas back and this was the chance. This excuse to declare war was presented in Finnish radio by president Ryti and it is remembered by people in Finland so this excuse lingers while official historians haven't really bought it ever. Addition to this topic I want add other possible topic to your list. Situation in Karelian Istmus in june 1944 and why Finnish army reserves were in East-Karelia and not in the Isthmus and what Finnish army HQ did right and what wrong. This is more modern debate among historians in Finland and it gives possibility to observe operational development in this large battle.
Tik has got one of the important event that is often overlooked. Molotovs Berlin visit 1940. I want to add that according to many Finjish historians , Germany informed the Finnish leadership just a week after the meeting that Molotov wanted to start a new war against Finland. There by Finnish leaders felt that the peace treaty from Mars 1940 was not worth the paper it was written on, and there after actively sided with Germany.
Just wanted to tell you that you've really inspired me to be more productive! I have a mound of history books that I just let lay around but after watching some of your videos I decided to read one I had on Barbarossa... I finished it in one night and picked up another one today on James Gavin! Thank you man.
Concentrate on science subjects or maths ..I studied history & have a degree and it is of no use whatsoever as a career . It might be interesting but unless you want to work in a museum don't bother unless you just want to learn about history .
Interestingly after peace with Soviets in 1944 and later peace with the nazis, Finland was in weird political purgatory trying to balance between the west and the east with the Soviets dictating many things. Finns started self censorship of all media and the West Germans called this Finlandisierung. We also had mostly a single president during the whole cold war but we did well economically. It's a difficult to understand period.
That President was reportedly a NKVD/KGB agent and Finland had a 'secret police' after WW2 persecuting the old guard. Finland was subject to an Allied Control Commission (USSR and the UK had a small voice). The USA was not part of that Commission as it was never at war with Finland.
For the Finns it was either take the aid offered by Germany or learn to speak Russian. I have to think they'd have to come to the same conclusion I did even though I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I don't think a 2nd attempt to invade Finland by Russia would be as inept as the 1st.
@@ВячеславСкопюк I'd have to guess USSR since they actually spent the blood to take the ground and then there's the pact between the USSR and Germany that handed the Finns over to the USSR. In short the USSR invaded and Germany didn't. Do you have another take on it?
@@readhistory2023 as with the Poland, after some point, it was either USSR invasion or Germany occupation. Since the general sympathies of Finnish upper class were with Germany, indeed a number very poor choices were made - they got the first, then the second.
@@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
One important political developement during the interim pease was the possible nordic alliance. Finland, Sweden, denmark and norway were planning defensive alliance, but soviets pressured Finland not to go ahead with those plans. A few wheeks later it was pretty much impossible, due to german invasion of the norway and denmark. Finland was forced to co-operate with germany. It wasn't just weapons we needed. We would have starved without german food. Due to the world war there was no other source.
Also the planned union between Finland and Sweden which was designed after the Nordic version fall apart due to Germany invading Denmark and Norway was not discussed. It would allowed Finland to step out of the war - in fact one of the prerequisites from Sweden agreeing to it was that Finland would need to give up all claims to and plans for retaking the lost lands (revanchism) to which the Finns had provisionally already agreed. But again both the Soviets and the Nazis opposed that plan so the Swedes shelved it. Why it is interesting is that had Soviets not had any further plans against Finland - that union would have been good for them - but they adamantly opposed it. Which is rather telling of the Soviet motives and plans towards Finland during the Interim Peace. Food is a good point too. The start of the WW II cut Finland off from the the fertilizers which had previously been shipped to Finland. Additionally it meant that Finland lost some of its most arable land in the Winter War. All in all while Finland had never since the independence been actually self-sustaining that limit was almost reached in 1938-39 (IIRC ~95%) so that was the first time when Finland had not needed to depend on trade to get enough food into the country. Following the Winter War that rate dropped somewhere around 60% which made Finland almost fully dependent on trade just to get avoid starvation. And it made Finland also vulnerable to blackmailing with food - something the Soviets tried during the Interim Peace and what the Germans later tried during the Continuation War.
And after 80 years, against reason, that alliance still does not exist. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't prefer being the safety buffer of Sweden.
Great presentation. Finland was in a place where the Allies had failed Eastern Europe. They were in a bad position between the two Ideologies. I am not sure they had an option that kept them a free nation. The Soviets had recently attacked them so Stalin was not trusted. So perhaps they feared a German invasion less ?
You summed it up perfectly. Finland had requested help from UK and France vs USSR, and the help was actually promised but it never materialized due to all their forces being tied against Germany. Following Germany occupying France, Denmark and Norway Finland was sandwiched between Germany and USSR. They could not stay neutral. Many say Sweden was neutral but that's incorrect. They supplied Germany with iron ore and traded with Germany. They had no choice either or Germany would have attacked them like they did to Norway. I think if Finland had rejected Germany's troops access to move freely in Finland, Germany would have attacked Finland as well.
The Brest-Litovsk treaty by Germany in WW1 caused Finland to become independent. I think they were more favored towards the Germans from this, along with the fact that the Soviets attacked them.
TIK, I'm from Finland and I like overally the video what you made here. Good, informative and gets to the point. I''d like to point out that around 19:00 you speak about taking Karelia back. At least to my knowledge and experience, the Karelia in this case and usually means the Karelian isthmus and the areas around Lake Ladoga. So it doesn't mean east-Karelia.
Finland doesn't need to "claim innocence" for anything as long as the allies don't have to claim innocence for backing up a a genocidal dictator (Stalin) who annexed countries that had in no way threatened the USSR (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and invaded half of the country the allies supposedly went to war for (Poland). When there's an apology and the admission of guilt for allying with Stalin, then the Finns can admit guilt for allying with Germany. Not a second earlier.
Few things I feel have to be mentioned: Sweden and Finland tried to form state-union already on 1940. Sweden set 2 conditions for that. One was that Finland has to give up trying to return the lost lands of winter war. Finns agreed to this because their situation was already terrible and second invasion looked more than likely. Denmark and Norway had just fallen under occupation and any meaninful help from Britain and France was unlikely to reace Finns. Second demand was to get blessing from Soviet union and nazi-germany for this alliance. Hope was that it would grand them neutral status and keep them out of war. Needles to say, this idea was shot down by germans and soviet. They had their own plans and visions for these lands.
This alliance proposal was mentioned on book "Toteutumaton valtioliitto" ('Unrealized union') by Ohto Manninen. Finnish parliament discussed it on march 1940, but this and other potential military alliances fell off public debate when Soviet-Union denounced these plans as breach of Moscow peace treaty. Following negotiation with swedes, brits and germans were kept unofficial and secret; It probably explains some of the confusion in current, English-speaking, public depate. In general, year 1940 was very grim time for smaller northern states. Hopefuly you can dive more on political decision making in coming videos because It is crucial aspect if one wants to understand logic behind of action on finnish-soviet front. Ziemke and Lunde as sources arent enough for that.
I remember seeing even Russian documentaries note how Finland was unwillingly to tighten the noose around Leningrad. And despite having the strength to, they more or less stopped at the prewar border, thus giving the Soviet defenders room to breath and in turn, became a core reason why Stalin accepted the Finn's change of sides later. Did you find any information on this?
>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
@@ВячеславСкопюк Well I realized Putin is a weirdo with his half-naked riding photos. 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. Stalin didn't leave Romania with any independence though. The Finns however did retain it, and even managed to stay on good terms with both sides in the Cold War (something few nations managed).
@@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
Well i think the political situation in 1940 drove Finland in to the arms of Germany. If the soviets had not tried to invade Finland again or had not in the first place Finland would have more than likely sat this one out
In the first days of Barbarossa Soviet air force attack still neutral Finland pushing it to war. Finland wasn't inform about Barbarossa, and without that bombings Finland could stay neutral.
@@horatio8213 Thinking that the only reason we went to war was because the soviet bombed Finland is an old myth. We mobilized before hand, we had German troops in the north as well as a German division in karelia, we had German planes landing and setting off to attack the soviets before it etc. Plus attack plans dont happen over night or the obviously agreed attack arrangements with German troops
@@ВячеславСкопюк First, Soviet Union keep bases on taken finish teritory, Hanko naval base forced by Mocov Treaty! And force major contribiusion that hit german interes included in soviet-german agrements. Germans just protect interest in Finland. What goverment of Finland have to do squeez between two totalitarian monsters! Second in this video lack of bigger picture of relationship between III Reich, Soviet Union and Finland after Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Anexation of Baltic States and international ciritic of Soviets when they attack Finland! Third, from start Soviets knew about german forces in Finland but protest when they realize that is not only small sentry forces but something more. Fourth. Finland was basicly pushed to war when both Germany and USSR preparationn to invade eachother. And for the last TIK forgett that Fins have support from UK and USA to stay independent from Stalin's rule. USA and England never agree that Finland is III Reich ally and for the long time didn't reconize soviet claim to land taken from Finland. And Finland go to war when Soviet bombs civilian targets, not germans units or bases!
I am not Finnish, though i do very much admire the music of the great Finn composer Jan Christian ("Jean") Sibelius, but the global map looks really ugly with Russia / Soviet Union / Russia occupying large portions of the Kola Peninsula (including the White Sea and Lake Lagoda). It should ALL go back to the Finns, at least for aesthetic purposes...^^
Awesome video, once again, thank you! Finally took the time to sign up to Patreon and support you with a few bucks a month, your work is more than worth it!
I agree that Finland were the aggressors but I don’t see why it was wrong, they probably did want their territory back and thought that during Barbarrossa was the best moment
@Finnish Fellow hey swamp boy,....finland is russ land for eons,....as germany untill elba river and sweeden,......war for motherland is continuing,...this time we will not left one allive nazi nato isis talmudic therorist filth on our land cheers from serbian
@Finnish Fellow hhahha like your spirit,..a like fins....but still finland is ours as sweeden,...and prussland soon to be liberated...no humor can help against 27 mah speed nukes,......and btw i m building hammam and sauna in my countryside house,...and having place on the sea,.....so i doubteed it,...i m from millitary pashtrovich clan with knight holding sword and choped turk head in heands on the fammily insignia,.....,..soon we r with sorab russ armmy in serbian luisitanian cities berlin nd drezdeen...cherio from Mother Serbia
@Finnish Fellow and p.s.if you cut the supllies for leningrad russian border with be already at norway near kristiansund where it is actully....norvigians our brothers are our neighbours...you just understood..the unevitablle.cheers from Ingwar.Igor
During the "continuation war" public opinion in Germany (and also in Finland) held that the two countries were in fact brothers-in-arms. The attitude toward Russia was extremely hostile among Finns. This was ofcourse understandable due to the experience of winter war in 1939-40. My grandparents for example had to escape from their homes in Karelian isthmus at the start of the winter war in 1939 so I am not judging ordinary Finns for their vengeful attitudes but in my opinion political and military leadership should have known better. That being said it should be noted that German armament that Finns received in the summer of 1944 (most notably panzerschercks and -fausts) were crucial in defence against Soviet attack.
@Dark Shield During the siege of Leningrad Finns never wanted to attack the city and even though there were differing opinions among the military leadership there wouldn't have been public approval for such actions. I would say that we did participate in the siege hesitantly but we never had genocidal plans against the Russians like Germans had. And after WW2 the Finnish-Russian relations have always been relatively good.
"but in my opinion political and military leadership should have known better. " Finally some reasonable Finn. Sorry for your grandparents but they would be compensated financially ( if there could be a compensation for a home) by the Soviet Union if the Finnish government had agreed on the Soviet demands. The financial compensation was negotiated (read Tanner if you're interested). And the border at the isthmus was not the stumbling point of the negotiations, the Finns were ready to move the border, it was Hanko. But even there with Hanko, Stalin was ready to compromise with some islands SE of Hanko.
@@simplicius11 It is true that the Finnish goverment preceding Winter War was verry uncompromising and I agree that the military base in Hanko was probably the hardest part to swallow for the Finns in the list of Soviet demands in 1939. After the war we had to give a military base to the Soviets anyway.
@@simplicius11 sure, however that compensation would have been short lived after Stalin would then set the second phase of his plan into place and that would have been complete annexation of Finland after taking all the most important defensive locations from the Finns in 1939. The war(s) where inevitable, unfortunate for sure, however a reality.
@Dark Shield you should had been more angered by the Spanish who literally attacked Leningrad which sacked the city and utterly halted 1943 pincer Guards Operation Lunar Star, because the fascist Spaniard Blue Division were so ferocious opponent, took back Southern Leningrad in exchange for sacrificing the rail way to the elite soviet troops. However, the soviet failed to encircle the 18th army who the defensive supply lines of the Azule Division give the tank Guards hell, antitank/ artillery shelled the advancing soviets which collapsed.
Hey TIK, if you still wish - i can give first hand accounts of Soviet, Nazi, then Soviet (again) occupation and life during it, given a primary source (my grandfather, while he's still alive, since his health isn't doing so well, and it would be my way of honouring him, and his memory, since he was excited to hear that his stories would be of use to a great historian, such as yourself). Oh, and are you planning to cover the Winter war in it's entirety maybe? Or some less known, dubious subjects like the Franco-British Madagascar plan?
As a Finn I've heard that Germany hinted us in winter war that it will be beneficial to us to accept the peace treaty, because "we would have the areas back with interest". Not sure if this is just a rumour or it actually happened.
I've not heard that before, and none of the sources I used mentioned that, so I would assume it's more of a post-event-hindsight outlook on the events. That said, evidence may be out there to support it... but until it's brought to light, assume it's not the case.
@@TheImperatorKnight Finland sent an ambassador called Toivo Kivimäki (former prime ministeri 1932-1936) to Germany in early february 1940 while the Winter War was at a crucial point. Mr. Kivimäki asked for German assistance against the Russians but the Germans weren't really being helpful or forthcoming, so Mr. Kivimäki alluded that our wartime government was about to accept the Allied promise of assistance from the north. This changed the German position, as an allied intervention was a clear threat to their interests in Swedish iron. The Germans set up quickly a meeting between Hermann Göring and Mr. Kivimäki on February 22nd. A very close friend of Kivimäki, Ragnar Nordström, wrote in his memoirs in the end of 1940s, that Göring had said the following: " Remember, you must make peace at all cost. I guarantee, that when we soon go to war with Russia, you will get whats yours with interests". Ragnar Nordström was very much involved in wartime governments matters and a political grey eminence, so you might make the assumption that he would know what he is talking about. This story is also somewhat confirmed by the actions of personal emissary to Göring, Josef Veltjens, who was selling weapons to Finland despite Hitler banning the sale and delivery through Germany. Veltjens has been mentioned several times in Finnish accounts of war as an unofficial ambassador from Germany who had high level talks with the main players throughout Winter War and Continuation War. Veltjens war Göring's man in Finland and talked directly with Prime Minister Ryti and Marshal Mannerheim during the Winter War, although descriptions of these discussions are not known. There has been some debate over Nordströms claims veracity, but Professor emeritus Heikki Ylikangas has researched this matter and has provided in my opinion a convincing case for Germany influencing Finlands decisionmakers into suing for peace in the hopes of revanche later in his book "My interpretation about the Winter War" or Tulkintani talvisodasta (2001)
@@TheImperatorKnight The claim is from a letter of T.M. Kivimäki (Finland's ambassador to Berlin) dated June 1941, where Kivimäki says that he remembers how Hermann Göring advised the Finns to accept the peace in February 1940 at any cost so Finland would get everything back and more. Hermann Göring made the same claim and said he's proud how the Finns followed his advice and accepted the harsh peace in March 1940. However, Germany was reluctant to signal any public support to Finland until July-August 1940, and Finns accepted the peace only after the Winter War front was on a brink of collapse.
Of course it was planned. No Finn in their right mind denies it. Nevertheless it's called continuation war for a reason, in my mind it was righteous war considering what had happened earlier in winter war. Also Finland didn't fight "total war" against Soviet union. Finland refused to take part in the Siege of Leningrad or cut the Murmansk railway road. Also Finland was very clear about not being part of the Axis. Finland didn't share the Nazi ideology. So was Finland the aggressor? Yes. Was it justified? I think yes. Technically Finland did wait until the Soviet union made the first move but Finland was ready to answer immediately.
For anyone out there questioning Finland's actions and motives 1941-1944, I would kindly point out that this is Stalin's Russia we are talking about. Stalin's. If you think that a reasonable, peaceful and balanced outcome was ever on the table, you obviously haven't been paying attention.
@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
@@ВячеславСкопюк Many small things maybe to thives, murderes, Communazies, Putin's arse lickers and other crooks but to normal people, and especially to leaders of Finland, it ment that Ruskie Commies, Kremlin Bastards, were not to trust. The pay back time came in the summer of 1941. Proud to say that many, many, many of my relatives joined our Great Patriotic War against the red fascists.
Great video, hope that you will make more on the subject of the Finnish front As to your conclusion that Finland was part of the Axis and an aggressor, I agree, but will also say that they were rather unique in that role, since they didn't eventually fall under German/nazi control as practically every other European member of the Axis did, and therefore they never became involved directly in most of the darker sides of the conflict (I'm not saying warcrimes weren't committed by Finns, since any army at war is most likely not able to claim such a thing, but I don't think there was ever a dedicated effort in such a direction). I think what people balk at is the idea that an "enlightened" democratic country can ally itself with a bunch of brutal dictatorships, but to those who think like that I would point out that all of the democratic nations on the "good" side allied themselves with the Soviet Union, which was also a brutal dictatorship. Anyways, thanks for filling up the TIK cravings with another great video :)
Hey TIK, something similar to this video, I'm wondering what goals other nations had in the invasion of the Soviet Union. You spoke about Finland's conquest of 'Greater Finland' and Eastern Karelia, what about Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Italy? What would those countries have acquired if they were to defeat the Soviets? We know of Germany's goals however not much is spoken about its other allies when it comes to the invasion of the Soviet Union.
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
One question is, did they have any better choice? Being neutral resulted in the following for Romania (from wikipedia): "In 1940 Romania's territorial gains made following World War I were largely undone. In July, after a Soviet ultimatum, Romania agreed to give up Bessarabia and northern Bukovina (the Soviets also annexed the city of Hertsa, which was not stated in the ultimatum). Two-thirds of Bessarabia were combined with a small part of the Soviet Union to form the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. The rest (northern Bukovina, the northern half of Hotin county and Budjak) was apportioned to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Shortly thereafter, on 30 August, under the Second Vienna Award, Germany and Italy mediated a compromise between Romania and the Kingdom of Hungary: Hungary received a region referred to as "Northern Transylvania", while "Southern Transylvania" remained part of Romania. Hungary had lost Transylvania after World War I in the Treaty of Trianon. On 7 September, under the Treaty of Craiova, Southern Dobruja (which Bulgaria had lost after the Romanian invasion during the Second Balkan War in 1913), was ceded to Bulgaria under pressure from Germany. Despite the relatively recent acquisition of these territories, they were inhabited by a majority of Romanian speaking people (except Southern Dobruja), so the Romanians had seen them as historically belonging to Romania"
Romania obviously wanted to reclaim territory seeded to the soviet union, as well as a expansion of territory. Hungary pretty much wanted the bounty of Ukraine and the caucuses oil fields.
The 420 000 Finns from the lost areas,did certainly NOT become Soviet citizens.The Finnish Army evacuated all of them to Finland.None of them wanted to live in the Soviet Union.
It has been pretty clear for some time now, that the documentaries and books outside Finland still have the apologist view of the events in 1940-41. That was prevalent in Finland until the end of Cold war and Soviet Union, for mainly political reasons. The truth was always known for historians and people alike, but never really discussed in a serious manner. After 1991, "the Truth" changed and many other aspects of the wars in 1939-45 have come to light. Partly because of the fruitful co-operation between Finnish and Russian historians. Unfortunately, the situation in Russia has changed lately, and there is a new wave of revisionism flowing through the historians, which means that even the start of Winter War is again debated. The view that Finland actually was a fascist country, secretly allied with Nazi Germany from the early 1930s and the aggressor in both wars, is again becoming more accepted. And that is unfortunate. There are still people in Finland who believe the earlier "truth" and deny all wrong-doing. Even the concentration camps for the displaced Soviet civilians who were captured in 1941 are too much for some people. Or the mistreatment of POWs. Then again, there are documents that prove neither was officially meant to exterminate people, but it was more a matter of the situation in 1941-42 (food shortage and destroyed infrastructure in Karelia). And it is also quite certain, there were some people in the administration of those camps, who weren't really good at it, or did actually have racial prejudice to the Soviet people and did bad things on purpose. Majority of the deaths in both types of camps happened in the winter of 1941-42 and after that, conditions got a lot better and mortality rate lowered considerably. Another thing that is still a bit of taboo in our history of the second world war, are the executions of our own soldiers for mutiny. There is some research done in that area, but there has been a lot of covering up during times, or records have been destroyed unintentionally, so it is hard to figure out all details. I think there are some "skeletons in the closet" still to come out. Maybe the narrative outside Finland suffers from the lack of recent studies translated to other languages? That's something that should be corrected, as I can clearly see a lot of growing interest among foreigners to the history of our country. And to be quite frank, the history of Finland is often very much influenced by wars.
well, being a Finn, I think it should be freely discussed, if we forget our history, we will be cursed by repeating it. So talk about the good as well as the bad. However let me now say I will forever be indebted to the Finnish heroes back then, I would not have been born in a free country without their sacrifice to defend Finland's freedom. All my pride and honour to these great heroes. My great uncle is one of then a fallen soldier in Dec 1939 in the Winter War. All of my honor to him for fighting for what was just and right.
As a Finn, I've never observed any of those topics being treated as a taboo. Perhaps I'm too young - born in -87. But to me it's always been a natural fact that Finland was the agressor in the Continuation War, that we wanted to expand beyond the old border, and that we kept Soviets in camps. I've thought it's common knowledge everywhere. Sadly, I too have noticed that the Russians are revisioning their version of the past, full throttle. I've had to argue endlessly with Russians who claim that Winter War was Finland's fault, that Finland was a fascist country and that Finland took part in the siege of Leningrad. Such facepalm worthy bs. But they seem to believe it themselves. Russia is really going down the drain these days. With these attitudes growing, it's best that each of Russia's neighbors has a good defense plan.
Continuation War, not "Continuation War". It didn't drop from the thin air - the hostilities of previous winter - continued. The name already tells it was pre-planned. In a way it was the same war continuing. There was ony a seize fire, no peace treaty had been written. What had changed, was that now Germany had started hostilities with Soviet Union. 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. After that declaration the Finns did attack. But Soviets had started the hostilities - again. Did the Finns have plans, pre-planned to attack? OF - COURSE! About half a year had gone, when Finns had to give territory to the Soviet Union after a war. Would you believe they wanted them back? In case an opportunity presented itself, could you imagine 300k people wanted their homes back? And it wasn't like the SU didn't plan to attack again. Of course I wish they had just licked their wounds, and not attacked in Soviet Union - we lost even more the next time a seize fire came. And this time a peace treaty too. Maybe they shouldn't have allowed the Germans to come to Lapland. So, would UK have come to help Finland, if Stalin attacked again - or USA? For us Finns THEY were the traitors. They had failed their promises given during the 30', the latest when the Soviet attacked. While I understand they stopped those plans, after Finland asked and got help from Germany, it felt hypocritic for the Finns - like thanks for nothing guys. This big guy is beating me, and you bail - I had to ask that madly grinner creep to help, or I was a goner. Sweden was neutral. It was Germany, or becoming part of the Soviet Union. Is that what you wish had happened to Finland? Thanks. We would be then like the Polish coming to UK looking for cheap jobs, after spending a generation under the Socialist dreamworld. I'm glad Adolf didn't win, but without his help we would be half Josefs ourselves. Those whose grandpa's wouldn't have died in Siberia. Don't know if my father would've been an indoctrinted commy then, or not existing, if the Soviet gospel preachers had killed him when taking my grandpa to the gulags. It's not a theory to speculate for me, but a shaky stand at the edge of an abyss. Let's say the Germans were bombing UK, further away than London, destroying ships in Atlantic. Do you want to say UK didn't plan any counteractions, even attacking the mainland, if the opportunity came? Or maybe the Anglo-Saxons should have just accepted French as their language, because the Normans wanted? Russians didn't attck Finland 1st time in 1939. there was more than 1000 yeas of earlier cases, which nowadays would go to Hague. It's easy to bully the smaller guy, so go ahead and choose the side of the bully - kick the loser of WWII a bit more. The big red bully wouldn't leave us alone, when he thought we would join the gang of another one, the raging bully. Why would we do that? We lived next to the red bully. You think we planned to take the first punch for the raging bully? Finland wanted to be left alone, but Stalin came to whoop our ass, so he could be sure Germans wouldn't come here. Well, after he beat us, the Germans came. He made happen the prophecy he feared: what he feared, he got. And you want to suspect Finns wanted to join the raging bully for his nice nature? He had his racial cleansing program for the Jews. In Finland the Jews served in the Finnish army. Germans dropped their jaws in Lapland, when they saw Jews waving them chearily from the neighbouring trenches. Comrades in arms. The Germans had to ask their superiors how to conducted with these Jews. They got orders to treat them as the other Finns. These Finnish Jews have written books, and there are TV documents of them. Many of these war vets wee allowed by Finalnd to go to Israel, when they fought for their independence. Some of them took Israeli citizenship, some returned to Finland, and visited sometimes to help them build the country. At the same time UK tried to stop the Jews from going to Israel. People who had no home in Europe, and who nobody in Europe wanted. Well, when Finland was bombed in 1939 - there were British journalists in Helsinki who witnessed that, and reported in the news papers in UK. Also Americans were in Helsinki, and I guess French too. Soviet foreign minister Molotov said they were bread. Molotov's breadbaskets they were called after that. This is the reason why there's now a crude weapon called Molotov's cocktail. It's not a Finnish invention - but the name is. It's a drink to go along with the bread Molotov distributed. Why Finland allowed German forces to come to Northern Finland? Yeah, a seize fire with superior enemy was signed in March. They The only ally available came to help to defend the country, which Finland didn't have the manpower to do after recent losses. Well, Mannerheim said this was also the reason he went over the old border North of Ladoga, to have enough manpower to defend the borders. Was it so, I'm not a soldier. But it seems to follow he same logic why Finns ask Germany to defend Lapland. As your video also said, the Lapland Germans didn't seem to plan to advance very far, just stop Finland from collapsing. While this might look as a provocation to the SSSR, well they did come across the border in -39 without a Finnish provocation. They just staged one, a legitimation for their attack. They said Finns shot first across the border with artillery. If it doesn't sound logical, that Finns. to the last straw, would avoid irritating a superior enemy who had just occupied their 3 southern neighbours - then maybe it would suffice as a proof of the Finnish innocence, that Finland didn't have such modern artillery or shells to shoot such an artillery barrage as had happened in Mainila? A place in Soviet side of the border, because 1939 is not the 1st time the Russians had taken Finnish lands. It had strted in the 11th or 12th century, and in the 14th century they were stopped. Well, with the help of Swedes, who held Finland circa 1100-1808, or circa 1300-1700 in the Eastern Finland. So it wasn't as simple that the Soviet were only victims in the WWII - the 'good guys' who suffered innocently. Yes, they were that, when the Germans attacked. But in 1939 they were themselves the aggressors against smaller countries - not just Finland. In addition to the Baltic countries and Finland, they had just taken half of Poland earlier in -39. You could check the UK papers of -39.
>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
@@ВячеславСкопюк There were no German troops in Finland before the Winter War Nov1939-March 1940, and during most of it. In the end part of it, Jan-March there were some military advisors and salesmen, who sold some equipment. But no German troops yet. There were even some British volunteers, until Finland started to receive help from Germany. If there wasn't, USSR would have conquered Finland. Those forces came before the 1941 counterattack. So attacking Finland Stalin got what he feared: German troops in Finland. Without the Winter War Finland wouldn't have joined the war: Nothing to gain, much to lose.
Thanks to finnish defensive victories 1944 summer in Äyräpää-Vuosalmi, Viipurinlahti, Tali-Ihantala, Nietjärvi and Ilomantsi line, mad man Stalin finally agreed to make the peace treaty and Finland kept their independence. Without those battle victories finnish defensive lines would've collapse and Soviets next step ofc, occupy the whole Finland.
Much have been written about this Continuation War. In particular in Finnish and also by Swedish historians and volunteers that participated. To put this in context, keep in mind that after the Winter War defeat, the imminent treat to Finland's existence was only temporary on hold. Everyone in Finland believed by autumn 1940 that this treat was still real. Already before Germany occupied Denmark and Norway it was an attempt to create a defense alliance including Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden. Another attempt to secure Finland was discussions about a defense union with Sweden during spring and summer 1940, but the latter was not liked either by Germany and was finally dropped after pressure by Molotov in December 1940. The last seen "survival option", was Germany, a "safe haven" that remains to prevent a Soviet annexation. Between the Winter War and the Continuation War, Finland's had limited supply of crops and fertilizers - thus food shortage was common. Some was supplied from Sweden and Denmark and later Germany. In this way Germany get some leverage against Finland. At this time parts of the Finish government was not informed about the ongoing secret Finish-German negations which involved only highest political and military leaders. During this period before the outbreak in June 1941, Finland purchased military materiel to build up it's military power, from Germany, mainly captured weapons. At that time the idea that Finland could recover lost land if they collaborated was floated by the German high command. Source: "Karelska Näset 1944 Nordens öde avgörs" by Johan Lupander & Jan-Christian Lupander. ISBN 978-91-1-302170-6 (Swedish)
Great commentary and quite balanced IMHO. I would simply add that the Soviet Union was an existential threat to Finland's existence. It should be noted that the Western Powers did not offer her a guarantee of independence like they did to Poland. So the Finns were on their own and were forced into a very difficult situation. Although I am not sure of this, I believe the Soviet Union was condemned and expelled from the League of Nations as a result of her attack on Finland in 1939. I do not consider Finland as part of the Axis, and apparently the Allies didn't either as it is my understanding that the United States did not declare war on Finland. Any country, including Finland has a right to defend herself, and Germany was the only country that could supply her with the weapons she needed. No one else was stepping forward.
>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
@@ВячеславСкопюк Finland was a co-beligerment, not an ally. They only fought to regain territory and fight the Soviets back. The west had abounded them and their only hope was to accept german aid. Hell, germany attacked Finland int he winter war and after on the lapland war with extreme prejudice not to mention hitlers rage at Finland not helping the germans take leningrad. Not exactly axis material, just a country with it's back to the wall that had to use the cards they'd been dealt
@@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?
I don't know if you have ever heard/read this, but here is a transcription (from finnish to english, the original language is obviously german) of a meeting, that was accidentally recorded by a finnish sound technician who was hired to record Hitlers and Ryti's opening cermonial speeches, that took place in 1942 in a train cart where Hitler discusses the current situation on the eastern front with the high command of the finnish defence forces. Just a heads up, this is a pretty big wall of text. Hitler: A major threat, one that we can only now fully asses in it's entirety. We didn't accurately know how mighty and monstrous this beast is. Mannerheim: We really had no idea of this during the winter war. It was evident that they were well equipped, but as well equipped as they were in reality! And there is no doubt, as to what they had in mind now. HItler: Artists at their craft (soviets)! Absolutely! They have the most horrendous armament you can imagine. I mean, if someone had told me prior, that a nation possessed the battle readiness of 35000 panzers (t-34 etc.), i would have told them, that they are insane! Unknown finn: 35000?? Hitler: 35000! We have already destroyed more than 34000 tanks in total. If one of my generals, at my cabinet, had told me prior 35000, i would have replied: You good sir, see everything 10 or 20 fold, it is madness, you are seeing ghosts. I didn't think it was possible... Hitler: We had found factories earlier, one in Kramatorsk for example. They started building there two years ago and we didn't have a clue! Now there is a factory there, that employs 30000 workers on it's first stage and 60000 at it's full capacity. One single (soviet) panzer factory. We took control of it and it is a GIGANTIC factory. Massive labour forces, that regardless live like animals. Unknown German: In the Donetz region! Mannerheim: Yes, but you should consider that they have been free to rearm themselves for almost two decades, no over two decades, 25 years. And all that time they have spent solely on rearming and preparing. Hitler: Yes, well.. that is as is. I had no idea, but even if i had, i would have felt an even heavier burden. But in that case, i would have made up my mind with even more reason, as there would have been no alternatives. It became clear to me in the winter of 1939-1940, that this would eventually happen. I just had a nightmarish feeling. For a fight at two fronts would have been miserable, we would have broken then. I see it clearly now. Hitler: Indeed, back in the fall of 1939 i wanted to execute a campaign to the west, but the bad weather kept stopping us, as all of our armaments were, and still are, "beautiful weather" equipment. It's highly effective and good equipment, but it's made for clear weathers, as we have seen during this war. It was made for the western front. Hitler: And we were convinced, as we have been since the dawn: you can not fight a war during the winter. And we also tested our German tanks and other German motor vehicles, but not to modify them for winter warfare. We test drove them, so that we could prove, that fighting a war during the winter is impossible. It was a different type of approach... Hitler: In the fall of 1939 we were faced with the same question over and over again, and i still absolutely wanted to attack. And i was convinced, that the fighting in France would be over in six weeks. It was only a matter of, whether or not we could move, and it just kept raining. And i know this french terrain very well, and even i couldn't ignore the viewpoint, that most of my generals had, that we wouldn't have the force necessary, we couldn't have used our panzers, and we couldn't have deployed our planes on these temporary airfields, due to the rain. I knew northern France, i was there for four years, in the great war. Hitler: And then there was the delay! If i had taken care of France in 1939, the path of world history would have been very different. And so i was forced to wait until 1940, and regrettably it wasn't feasible before the may 10th. The 10th of May was the first clear day. On the 10th of May i attacked immediately. On the 8th, i gave the order: on the 10th, we attack! And afterwards we had the ordeal of moving all of our troops from west to east and we had to deal with Norway. Hitler: And at the same time, i can state this calmly these days, we encountered major misfortune. The weaknesses that had appeared firstly in Italy due to the situation in North Africa and secondly the situations in Albany and Greece - a grave misfortune. We had to help. It meant foremost, that we had to disperse our panzer and luftwaffe divisions. Just as we were preparing for the eastern front, we had to dispatch two panzer divisions, two closed divisions, and then a third one, to cover the major losses over there. The battles in the desert, they were very bloody... Hitler: Obviously later in the east, we were missing all these forces and there was no other alternative, than the inevitable decision. At that time, i was negotiating with Molotov and it became obvious when Molotov left the meeting, that he had decided to start a war. I parted ways determined, to start the war before he could if possible! Since the demands that the man made, were obviously aimed towards conquering Europe. Hitler: During the fall of 1940, we were constantly debating, should we let the situation end in a falling out. Back then i recommended the Finnish government to negotiate, to buy time and stall, because i was constantly afraid, that in the late fall of 1940 the Russians would attack Romania and seize the oil springs. And in the late fall of 1940, we wouldn't have been ready! If Russia had invaded Romania in the late fall of 1940, Germany would have been finished. Because we need those oil springs and it would have been accomplishable with 60 Russian divisions. Hitler: We didn't have any units in Romania back then, the Romanian government sided with us far later. And the oil reserves that we had, it was ridiculous, they only really had to man the oil springs. Hitler: I couldn't start a new war in september - october 1940, not with our armaments, it would have been impossible. And our preparations for the march to east hadn't progressed that far. And we still had to reorganize our troops in the west, since obviously we had suffered losses there as well. It was impossible to start a new campaign prior to the autumn of 1941. And if the Russians had occupied Romania and conquered the oil springs in 1940, we would have been helpless in 1941. Hitler: We had our great German production, but the amount panzer divisions consume, the amount the luftwaffe consumes, it is something appalling. It it's the kind of consumption, that exceeds imagination. And without that 4-5 million tons of oil from Romania, we couldn't wage war, and we'd be forced to leave it be. Hitler: Even prior to that, i was extremely concerned. It was also the main reason, for my goal to make it past those times with diplomacy, until we were ready to respond to this extortion like pressuring. Since their demands, were pure blackmail. They could extort anything from us, since the Russians knew that we were tied to the west, they knew that they could extort anything from us. Hitler: Only when i met Molotov, i told him that we couldn't meet their demands, those demands are unacceptable. Hitler: For myself, the negotiations were over the moment i stepped into the room. There were the four parts. One of the parts, was the right to defend themselves from threats from Finland. He told me, as soon as i entered the room, that Finland was threatening them. He said that they are preparing for actions against soviet friendlies in Finland, that they are persecuted, and that a superpower like the Soviet union can not allow Finland to threaten their very existence. I told him that Finland can't threaten your existence. Hitler: He said, yes, but there is also a moral threat from neighboring countries, and what Finland threatens, is our moral existence. I told him, that Germany will not idly watch by, if another baltic sea war occurs. Then he asked me of our intentions with Romania, Germany had given their guarantees, were those claims aimed at the Soviet Union as well? I replied to him, i doubt that those guarantees are aimed at soviet union, since you have intention of launching an invasion at Romania? We haven't heard any such notion, that you had any intentions of invading Romania. You have always stated, that Besserabia belongs to you, but you have never declared any intentions to invade Romania. At this point allegedly, a German security officer finds the hidden device and the recording ends. The meeting goes on for an unknown duration, however the recording of the meeting remains with the finish high command.
Good reference - it was no accidental recording - Hitler did not want a recording of his normal voice in English - the intonation in Mannerheim's reactions tell a brilliant story between the lines. He was the one who kept Finland free playing the lot of them. Tik misses the point with Mannerheim and relies too much on German reports who saw the Finns as traitors and burned everything on their way back to Norway..... Complicated stuff ...
Finland is not considered a Baltic nation, but a Nordic nation. Finland was a part of Sweden from 1150's to 1809, that's almost 700 years. However, Finland got to keep it's society as before during a part of Russia as autonomous province 1809 - 1917. 1/3 of Finnish genetics hail from Scandinavia, that's how much Scandinavia has influenced Finland. That legacy that is continued in welfare society, government, legal system, culinary culture etc. not to forget that Sweden, aside Finnish, is an official language in Finland. Swedes are also the closest genetic relatives (along with Estonians) to Finnish.
I know what TIK meant, by exit strategy I believe he meant by WINNING the war or not being annexed in the end. Finn's did have an exit plan but very risky, by exploiting Ryti on dismissing from the alliance with the Nazis without any political games and having the Nazis inside of their northern-land as a truce-card to be played. All in all, it worked but it was also; Plan to fail.
2:37 - Am I mistaken or did the Soviets actually not incorporate 12% of the population? I heard some historians say that pretty much no fins stayed in the annexed territories, but rather moved to Finland. Anyone know what is correct? It makes sense that pre-war, 12% of the population lived in the annexed territories, but I am farely sure that cities like Viipuri, were abondoned/evacuated by the finns living there, since they did not want to live in the Soviet Union. Actually when I think about it, I am pretty confident that on the youtube channel World War Two, covering the entire war, he actually states this in his videos about the winter war.
Pretty much, all 410,000 citizens got a new home already during the war. Among them was Martti Ahtisaari. Then there were also thousands of immigrants and deportees who survived the purges. They formed a battalion and clashed with the "whites" in 1941. Otto Wille Kuusinen has a statue near Cosmos Petrozavodsk Hotel.
Finland certainly wanted to cooperate with Germany because it barely survived the Winter War and desperately needed material and whatever assistance it could get from other countries. Finland would probably have preferred French or British help, but that was not an option any more, after Germany took control of Denmark and Norway. Finland had more troops available at the border in southern Finland after Germans took responsibility of the border line in the north. Finnish nickel was probably important to Germany, but note that the nickel mine is in Petsamo (Nikel), right next to Norway that was already under German control. That question could have been handled separately. It can be said that Finland wanted to join forces with Germans, but on the other hand it tried to avoid too tight relations. Finland didn't want to attack Leningrad, although that would probably have helped Germans a lot. Operation Barbarossa and German help (very important also in 1944) made it possible to survive also after the second conflict with Soviet Union. One key reason for going east (third in addition to taking the occupied areas back, and some interest in some circles to create a bigger Finland) was that Finland needed a buffer zone because it was obvious that the big war had not ended yet, and Soviet Union would certainly take Finland if it only could. It seems that the buffer zone idea worked in the sense that the Soviet Union could not occupy Finland at the second try either. The border line stayed close to where it was after the Winter War. The question if German troops were in Finland in 1940 was maybe secondary in the Finnish strategy, when compared to the more important question, if there would be guarantees that Germany would offer some military help to Finland. The problem of the Murmansk Railway is difficult. Finland certainly would have benefited militarily if it was cut (no new material to the enemy troops), but diplomatic reasons worked in the other direction. I don't know why Germans didn't put more effort in cutting that railway. But who started the Continuation War? Germany certainly wanted to do that. Finland certainly wanted to survive, ether by defending or by attacking. Soviet Union certainly wanted to take Finland at some point. It was maybe more of a question when the conflict would start, and which side would win. I think Finland's exit strategy was to survive until the war would end. The buffer zone approach supported this exit strategy. And if Germany would have been more successful, or Soviet Union weaker, Finland could have won its territory back. Some people would have been interested in the East Karelia too, if Soviet Union would have totally collapsed. Note that there were some activities in the East Karelia also after Finland reached its independence (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Karelian_uprising_and_Soviet%E2%80%93Finnish_conflict_of_1921%E2%80%9322). The Finnish leaders were probably more realistic with the East Karelia dreams than some of the activists.
It was justified aggression basically. Also you got to take into consideration that the Soviet Union had clear plans for another war against Finland, at the same time as they were planning on invading Europe.
>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?
I wish to see a video about Turkey-Germany relationships one day and why the Germans didn't attack Turks by which they could reach maybe easier to Caucasus and Iraq oil fields.
@@HistoryOfSocialism In some of the wilder Greater Finland visions that originate as early as 1918, Ingria was indeed part of it. But in actuality in WW2 the Finnish government didn't include Leningrad in even it's most optimistic war aims in 1941.
If Germany wins, Finland gets to keep the lost territories AND East Karelia. If Germany doesn't win, Finland can trade East Karelia for the lost territories. If Germany loses... well they didn't think that one through.
Sweden sent a regiment of volunteers to fight in Finland in 1940 btw. though that was never official you don't just have an entire regiment of volunbeers show up with guns and uniforms and a command structure without shall we say some ACTIVE MEASURES
@@findood8491 No, the generation of that time had the same type of people as nowadays, SJW's. Opportunist NPC's, just had played their own games differently.
"Let's discuss what some of the historians think about the "Continuation War", and see if there's not another view of why they went to war." Why they went to war? I'd say the war came to them. And just because the Winter War "ended", didn't mean they weren't still in a state of war. Two sayings apply perfectly here: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." and "The best defense is a good offense."
There is 2 points of background from 20 years earlier to note too. Firstly, Germans had helped Finland before in the Civil War. Of course these were not the same Germans, but there is that history of military co-operation. Secondly, the dreams of Greater Finland. Finnish volunteers got involved in the Russian Civil War and tried to liberate other Finnic peoples. Even when negotiating for formal peace with the Soviets in 1920, the Finns tried to push for East Karelian autonomy. There was still aspirations of uniting Finnic people under an one country when Continuation War started, but I believe most people were quite realistic about that. The main reason for Finland to get involved was the Soviet hostility in the year between the wars making it clear that another war was inevitable. Finnish strategy seemed to be to get to easily defensible positions between some big lakes and then just wait. The defensibility of those positions ended up not mattering that much as the Soviets just pushed hard through the Isthmus again when they attacked in 1944. I believe the Finnish fantasy of the ideal outcome for the war was to Germany and Soviet Union to somehow wrestle each other into submission and just leave Finland into its own devices, or maybe a repeat of WWI where Russia falls but Germany gets defeated by Western Allies afterwards.
Nowdays it’s not a secret that Finnish and German generals met pretty intensivelly especially in 1941 before Barbarossa. Germans didn’t reveal the exact attack date, but it was agreed that after the German offense begun Finland would wait for Soviet aggressioon for three days and attack after this even if there is nothing from the Soviets. When it comes to the question of advancing deeper into Soviet territory, it was mainly a military manouver. Defending a couple of hundred kilometers front along three isthmuses is a lot easier than defending a 1500 kilometer front. This never happened because in fall 1941 the Finnish war command didn’t want to advance further due to high casualties. The desicion was made by the military command, not political which in my opinion shows that it wasn’t a political question. Of course there were a lot of nationalist voices calling for the unifying all ”Finnish tribes”, but as far as I know there was never a official nor a unified policy of any kind to do this. As a fun curiosity, when Finnish forces crossed the old border, there was a lot of casies of soldiers refusing to advance further due to not seing this as justfied. But in general, yeah it was definitively an offensive war. The justifications can be debated (and I would strongly argue for them) but the agument of ”Finland just got into the war by accident” is just stupid. The whole thing in my opinion was an oppotunistic take on the situation. Germany, unlike USSR, was not a direct threat, and since they were going to attack the USSR it was thought better to stay on their good side (since their victory seemed more likely) and why not grab some land in the proces.
>and why not grab some land in the proces. Yeah, and starve to death 600 - 800 thousands of civilians in Leningrad in the process of "taking back their land". Not mentioning ethnic cleansing in Karelia, sending Soviet jews to Germany for extermination and making concentration camps for slavic children.
@Alex Alexin I think it's the part of historical myth of every country, noone likes to talk about the dark pages of their history. But as far as I know Finnish historians know the truth and there are interesting books about Finnish-German cooperation.
> Ethnic cleansing might be an exaggeration I'm afraid it's not exxageration, as population was divided by ethnical status and non-Finnish people were put into concentration camps, there's even article in wiki about that: "Ultimately, the division was based on ethnic principles (sometimes expressing somewhat pseudo-scientific anthropological theories), and thus monolingual Russian-speaking Karelians and children from multinational families were usually classified as "national".[16][17] The long-term goal of this pursued policy was to expel the "non-national" part of the population to German-occupied Russia after the war had reached a victorious conclusion." "At the beginning of the Finnish occupation of Karelia, over 20,000 of the local ethnic Russians (almost half of them) were placed in internment and labor camps. In the end of 1941 the number rose up to 24,000." "Living in Finnish camps was harsh as 4,000-7,000 of civil prisoners died, mostly from hunger during the spring and summer of 1942 due to failed harvest of 1941.[28][29] Also segregation in education and medical care between Karelians and Russians created resentment among the Russian population." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_military_administration_in_Eastern_Karelia#Ethnic_policies
I certainly hope you would do one piece about Finland. As for the Greater Finland idea: it had been floating around since 1918 among some more nationalist circles, academic nationalists and national romantics who saw the East Karelia as the "home land of Kalevala". Some white Finns had actually invaded East Karelia in the 1920's about the same time as the British invaded the far north in their futile effort to curb the reds in Russia. So there was certain amount of support for this idea but for the majority that was not what the Continuation war was all about. For the most of the Finns it was a revenge from the Winter war. As the troops crossed the Old Border there were literally thousands of men who refused to advance any further. These incidents happened across the whole front. Eventually no one got shot and those who had refused agreed to continue towards the east. As for the siege of Leningrad: one thing people in Finland and specially outside of it forget. Leningard was the home for marshal Mannerheim. He had lived most of his life in St.Petersburg and was a tsarist trough and trough. He had no animosity towards Russians as a people but he hated the Bolsheviks ie. Soviet Union. It is very likely he hoped the Germans would knock the whole soviet system down and he could return to his home town one day so that was one his motives not participate to the siege. As for the soviets, they hated Mannerheim BUT saw him as Russian white general so much so that immediately after the war they wanted him to take over the presidency of Finland. In 1990's Mannerheim was actually rehabilitated in Russia as an Russian general. One thing which is also lost in the smog of WW2: the February general attack in the Karelian isthmus in 1940 was the biggest attack in the whole war by that time. Also the soviet summer offensive in 1944 was one of the biggest attacks in WW2. Not many people know this and it would be very interesting to see and hear what you could come up with. One very strange detail: yes, Finland fought along side of Germany BUT the Finnish army had Jewish Finns in the ranks. They even had their own synagogue in the front right next to the German troops. Three Finnish Jews were awarded with the Iron cross for their bravery during the war. They did not take them, though.
Finland blocked Leningrad from the north, and Germany from the south. Thus they made famine in the city possible. This whole story about Mannerheim’s feelings towards Leningrad is a fake - commanders are never guided by emotions.
@@СергейРублев-т7я It was his home town after all so yes, it really was the place where he had spent most of his adult life and then some. And also, Finland did not block Leningrad from the north. We stood at the Karelian isthmus blocking the north west. Had we blocked the north there would not had been the famous ice road that kept Leningrad barely alive. Plus we would have also bombarded the city from out direction if we had any intention to destroy it. But we never did. It was not part of the Finnish plans anyway. The siege of Leningrad was one of the biggest war crimes in WW2. Now, one would think that if Stalin and the leaders of USSR had seen Mannerheim as a participant in that they would have demanded his head. But instead, they demanded that he was to be the next president of Finland since in their eyes he was an old white Russian general to whom they could relate and with whom they make a deal.
You say false information that was created after the war (memoirs). In reality, commanders are NEVER guided by emotions. And the Finnish army blocked Leningrad from the north by cutting off the ground path to the city.
@@СергейРублев-т7я Well, not according to the maps of the Red army by that time. But I guess there will be different views on this issue. Let us wait what TIK has to say if and when he does his research on the subject. The fact remains that if Finland would have wanted to stop the ice road on Lake Ladoga it could have done it easy by artillery alone and thus cut the whole city off but Finns never did and the Germans could not simply because they had spent their force by then. Yes, Finland occupied the Karelian Isthmus west and north west of Leningard, the ground which for the most part had never been Soviet ground until Stalin took it in 1940 by warfare. So yes, we were part of the blockade in that direction. But there were never any plans in the Finnish military to attack to the city or destroy it. That is a load of BS. Had the Germans done it Finns would have just looked on but not participated in that.
sami parkonnen I believe the Finnish Reds were originally even more nationalist and irredentist than The Whites. But after they were defeated their leaders were mostly in exile in The USSR so they had to change their tune.
They didn't "just happen" to attack at the same time. It was of course coordinated. But what choice did Finland have? Attack or be invaded. Period. They were co-belligerents. Not Axis. Maybe a difference without a distinction. But true nonetheless. The fact that the Finns refused to participate in the siege of Leningrad is illustrative. My main problem with Finland's actions in the Continuation War is a LACK of action. They had a couple of years to truly fortify their positions in Karelia. What did they do? Nothing. They literally had arts and crafts programs going on for the soldiers in the defensive lines. LITERALLY! When the Leningrad siege was broken, the Finns were left in a damnably weak position. Mannerheim has to take responsibility for this as much as anyone. But again, as for the cooperation with Germany, there was no choice. Ultimately that choice turned out to be correct, as evidenced by the fact that Finland emerged from the war as a still-independant nation, and wasn't incorporated into the Soviet Bloc or the Warsaw Pact. I very much enjoyed your video on this. Thanks.
>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?
Вячеслав Скопюк - Finland was given up into the “Soviet sphere of influence”. Neutrality would have been same as “wait for your turn to be annexed”. Tell Poland, and Baltic states about how neutrality worked out for them.
@@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.
@@ВячеславСкопюк The Baltic states wanted to stay neutral, but to Stalin and his 1,5-year friendo Hitler their sovereignty was a joke, to be handled like chips in a poker game, so off the map they went, crushed between giants. Enjoy your fantasy of thinking the USSR were the good guys gayboi, and enroll into a university. St.Petersburg State looks great.
@@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
Is it possible that the only way Finland was going to remain independent was to fight alongside the Germans? Yugoslavia was not able to. It had been German support that kept Finland independent after the fall of the Czar. It's like saying the U.S. were allied with Napoleonic France during the War of 1812. None of Britain's allies in that conflict declared war on the U.S. just as none of the USSR's allies did on Finland. Even the Soviets didn't consider Finland on par with the other countries fighting alongside the Germans as the treatment at the end of hostilities is not like Romania, Hungary, etc..
I think it's reasonable to say the Germans and Finns were Allies because there were German units stationed in Finland cooperating with Finnish units. The German-Finnish cooperation was far more substantial than the German-Bulgarian cooperation, despite Bulgaria being an official member of the Axis unlike Finland.
Opposite to what you say, the Soviet Union annexed zero % of the Finnish population after the winter war. No Finns remained in the annexed area, they all moved to other parts of Finland.
You are saying that Finland was part of axis. In somewhat that might be true. But what about soviets? They were allied wich germans at the start of ww2 and they both attacked Poland. Will that make soviets axis also?
>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?
@@ВячеславСкопюк TIK said that they were allies. In his recent video he clearly implies to that. I know you're a troll but it starts becoming meaningless when the channel you're trolling at, is actually against your words.
Finland was initially attacked by the soviets in1939 In the continuation war they never advanced beyond the border line of 1939. Thus leningrad was never completely surrounded by enemy forces during its siege 1941-1944. This gave the soviets the opportunity to have an open corridor over the frozen lake latonga to transfer provisions to the besieged city. This is why leningrad never surrendered to the germans. Even stalin recognised this and after the war did not insist in treating finland as an axis power. He just insisted that finland should remain neutral in the post war era. Mannerheim was not just a great general. He was a political genius. Way to go finland!
>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
@@ВячеславСкопюк an operation to cut off supply lines doesn't count. Plus, if they wanted to extend their borders why didnt they just help germany take Leningrad?
@@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?
A most interesting episode from the icy Northern Front. The Germans supplied the Fins with a huge amount of armaments between 1941- 44 . Especially Anti Tank Weapons , Stug III's and Bf 109's fighters until the Fins jumped ship , which in turn lead to the German Armed forces touching half of Finland in the fall of 44.
do you know that the germans promised Leningrad to finns? and the city was meant to be completely demolished. the documents really show all the horrors they planned to do with the territory and civillians. I know how to get the documents in russian if you like, probably they exist in english somewhere aswell
Can you make a video on the panzerturm or tank turrets that were used by the Germans as static defences in the Atlantic wall and the eastern front thanks it seems to be one of those topics where not much is available online so any info is appreciated
Considering the usual scope of TIK's videos I don't think he'll pick this one up, but there is another youtuber who might, his channel is called Military History Visualized Sorry for promoting other youtubers here, but considering that TIK and MHV have made at least one video together I hope it's okay
where's the lapland war? I know it's a seperate conflict but if you're going to talk about their relationship during the war it seems strange to leave out. If it was deemed out of the focus of the video being on that particular question then fine but i would've thought it would be mentioned.
Being on the same side as the axis is different from being in the axis. For all points, Winter War and subsequently the Continuation War were separate wars from the German wars. Second of all, the Continuation War did not come as a surprise to ANYONE, let alone the Finns. They knew it would happen sooner, or later. Countries in the axis were those that signed the tri-partite pact, Finland did not, thus she is not IN the axis. Simple as that. So here's the deal. You know you're going to get into a fight with a big dude you can't defeat. But you know another big dude will be fighting as well. Are you going to sit by and wait to get completely pummeled, or are you going to co-operate with the other dude? Preparing for a war that you know is unavoidable is not a sign of aggression. It's a sign of sanity. Had Finland not prepared, she would have fallen under the Soveit block sooner rather than later. Thus using this preparation as a declaration of war is quite asenine in my opinion.
"Finland signed a peace treaty with the Allied powers in 1947 which described Finland as having been "an ally of Hitlerite Germany" during the continuation war.[114] As such, Finland was the only democracy to join the Axis.[115][116] Finland's relative independence from Germany put it in the most advantageous position of all the minor Axis powers."[117] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Finland
Hey tik, the molotov-ribbentrop pact always had a confusing element for me: the soviets gained much more land (and probably population?) than the germans did. Did this cause any tensions between the two powers and did they have plans for poland, for example population transfer (like the one that happened after ww2 where poles living in belorussia were resettled). And will you cover the expulsion of germans from eastern europe in the future? Nice video as always, keep up the great work! But remember, if Finland had lost the winter war, the soviets would have swallowed the entire country. You cant just ignore this fact. Of course a war of aggression is not justified, but the war of aggression the soviets started against the fins must be remembered as well
You mentioned at 3:57 that Sweden did not really want to get into an alliance with Sweden. The Swedish government was actually split on this topic, after the Finnish ambassador to Sweden on the 20th of September 1940 raised the question of closer co-operation with Sweden, in one of three forms. He suggested a customs union, a defense union, or a complete "Anschluss". Yes, he did use that word. Prime minister Per Albin Hansson was hesitant, favouring a post-war solution that would also bring Denmark and Norway closer, while foreign minister Christian Günther saw the Finnish proposition to stop a second attack by the Soviet Union. The discussions continued for three months, even with demands from the Swedish government that Finland would abandon all plans to regain the lost territories. Even after Germany signed the transit agreement with Finland the discussions continued, and on the 4th of November the Swedish government agreed to keep up the discussions. On the 5th of November, the Soviet ambassador Kollontai warned against all continued discussions and on the 6th of December the Finnish ambassador in Moscow was informed that all further discussions about a potential Swedish-Finnish union was against the peace treaty from March, which finally ended the discussions.
Nikita Hrustshev talked about million, and he was an officer in WW2. So maybe the truth is somewhere between? Of course we citizens in The West have always taken your respective numbers (considering ANYTHING) at face value. You being so reliable and honest people, with impeccable knowledge of foreign customs and languages (= English).
Hey TIK, i just had a quick question for you. I'm writing a term paper for my history class on German night fighters of WWII. I was wondering if you have any books you can recommend for some sources on this topic. Thank you very much!
Try Nachtjagd by Theo Boiten and The Other Battle by Peter Hinchliffe. Biographies include Princes of Darkness by Claire Rose Knott regarding the two night fighter aces Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein and Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weissenfeld, The Lent Papers by Peter Hinchliffe on the second highest night fighter ace Helmut Lent, and Ace of Diamonds, also by Hinchliffe on the highest night fighter ace, Heinz Schnauffer.
Sorry mate, you have it wrong in many ways. And there are severel false claims you make. First the obvious mistake you make when you claim that Finland lost 12 % of its population due to the Winter war is pure nonsense. All finns (99,9%) living in the lost terrotories (to the Soviet Union) were avacuated to Finland before Soviet occupation. No one was willing to stay under Soviet rule. Then you make severel generalisations of the situation based only on Mr. Lunde's claims, and that is misleading. You should have read several more book of the complex situation on Finland in 1940-45. It was true that Finland wanted desperately to avoid a new war and possible occupation of the Soviet Union in 1940 after the Winter war. To soviets finalised their annecsation of the Baltic states summer 1940 and everyone thought that the next one will be Finland. And all possibilies were looked at to avoid this. The only asset Finland had in regard to Germany was the nickel of Petsamo just close to the Soviet Union in the northeasternnmost part of Finland. Germany needed a transit agreement with Finland as it was crusial that Germany was able to safely refill and supply the troops it had close to Soviet Union and Petsamo nickel mines. In northern Norwey there were no aducate roads from Narvik to the northeastern part of Norwey. So a transit agreement with Sweden would not do much for that problem. Finnish Lappland was needed by the germans for transit. Then you do not put eneough attention to Finnish command as they REFUSED to accack Leningrad defences from the north (and over the old border) even though German command asked it 1941 and again 1942. This was also the reason the USA never declared war against Finland during the WW2. Finland also refused to cut the Murmarsk railway line (to Argangel) even thought it was possible if Finland only had tried it with full force 1942. It never happened. Then You forget that Finland had a severe food shortage during winter 1941-42 and it was only Germany taht could help Finland. So in many ways Finland had really poor choises during those years. However you mention, that there was never any formal traeties with Finland and the axis nations. So Finland was operating under its own command, not by a joint command or under German command like Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia and Croatia. Aslo you should have to look the outcome of the war for Finland. The USA was willing to support Finnish efforts to brake the ties with Germany in 1944. They were not willing to do it for any ather country fighting along Germany. So at least the USA felt that Finland was truly a separate case and major contrast to the other small axis countries.
Finland was no separate case and nothing different from other countries of the region, it is the position of USSR that makes difference. USSR had to face pending aggression on all fronts, as industrially-developed capitalist countries were seeking to expand their influence and crush any resistance in their way - and the situation never changed before or after the war. If USSR would have wanted to completely surround and conquer Finland, they would have done so, however, it would have taken too little effect for so much effort to police such a large state. While considering the possibilities, USSR only claimed what was necessary to protect the second-largest city in the entire country, but of course nobody in the West likes to mention it. They prefer to brag how a small country gloriously killed waves of millions of dirty Bolshevik peasants that wanted to destroy freedom. US, UK and Germany have been trying to subvert Finland to fight against USSR since the very beginning of the existence of this country, and Finnish nationalism only wanted expansion and annexation. This is why they are always talking about that one war between USSR and Finland and prefer not to remember about other three. They prefer not to mention how many other nations fought among Nazis ranks so not to embarrass those nations when they will need their help in defeating Communism. And never ever try to talk about people who supported USSR and fought with them against imperialism and occupation (Lapland war, for example) - they do not exist in western version of history.
@@StelzCat "they do not exist in western version of history." They do exist: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War#English "and Finnish nationalism only wanted expansion and annexation" Lol. Thats what they told you in school? Look at the Soviet Union 1923-1991 coat to arms. Its a symbol that represents a nations goals. Its a hammer and sickle over the WHOLE GLOBE. simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_Soviet_Union And the Lapland war was triggered by Soviet pressure on Finns. So it wasnt a war "against imperialism and occupation". It was a war to throw all foreign authoritarian socialists out of Finland. Soviets wouldnt leave if there were Germans in Finland so Germans were kicked out by force. But German troops didnt bother the Finns, and German food saved Finland from starvation in 1941.
@@Paciat yeah well, as I was saying, US and Germans really don't like to remember any of that. And they also probably told you that the sickle means slaying innocent people and hammer means beating the hell out of them. Finland and USSR fought Germany together when they understood that there's no reason to allow ruthless dictatorship of capital to rule them in their worst form, and ever since then Finland was able to keep relatively good relationships with its neighbours. But apparently, not enough Finns died for US and German interests, so they put a lot of their effort in glorifying war, racism and collaboration in these countries.
@@StelzCat "And they also probably told you that the sickle means slaying innocent people and hammer means beating the hell out of them." Thats what they told you, lol, that my teachers told that to me. What does the whole world under a Soviet symbol means? Wheres England, France and Germany? Polish "Miracle on the Vistula" battle proved that countries will defend their independence. (as Stalin predicted and Trocky didnt) Thats why he abandoned the idea constant global revolution and decided to build a communist state. The "Stalin line" fortifications were build to give Soviets time to build a war Industry needed to wage an offensive war. Deep battle war doctrine, amphibious tanks, paratroopers, bunker buster tanks, flamethrower tanks, 203mm siege guns. You dont need those things when defending. And if Soviets were so scared of nationalists why did they propose the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact ? Didnt Hitler say he wanted Ukraine? Why would you want a common border? And then Soviets traded with NAZIs oil, rare metals (Cr, V) and food. The 1940 air battle of Britain and the sea battle of the Atlantic would not happen without Soviet fuel. But you believe that the Finns were a threat? If Finland wasnt attacked in 1939, Leningrad would not be encircled, Finland might even organised minor civilian evacuation of Leningrad or some food supply. Finnish nationalism nad NAZI cooperation was mainly caused by the 1939 war.
@@Paciat You were largely misinformed. USSR only abandoned the idea of global revolution when it collapsed. And you do not build defensive lines when you want offensive action. That's what Germans did - they've had no defences and when their desperate offence failed, they lost the war. Also if you want to learn history, you better remember Munch agreement, as well as look out for people who supported and armed German industry pre-war (ultra super-late spoiler: everybody did). If Finland wasn't attacked in 1939, Germans would concentrate their effort on the other side of the front and breached the defence in first hours of war. Which would lead to complete annihilation of the entire population, not just 1/3 of it. And that's why Finnish pre-war collaboration and adoration of Allied powers resulted in war - there was no need to deepen conflict between two countries other than for the sole purpose of kicking USSR out of League of Nations. (another late spoiler: with only England left in League as major power, there was no chance to do any meaningful resistance against Hitler).
Finland was very pro-German since long before the Winter War, so it's not surprising that they'd collaborate under the table. As for Karelia, it's cultural connections, the port city of Murmansk, and the chance to avenege the loss of western Karelia would have been powerful motivators. Not all decision-making is perfectly logical. Check out this link on urban combat: smallwarsjournal.com/urban_operations/main Most of them deal with modern warfare, but there are several articles on combat in WWII (see 'Breaking the Mold: tanks in the cities')
I see no reason to dwell on poor little Finland's part anymore as co-belligerent with Nazi-Germany against equally evil but much more potential threat to our nation i.e. Stalin's Soviet Union. But here we go if you really really want: 1) Winter War 1939-40 was by all accounts Soviet aggression, which destroyed all hopes of "neighborly relations". Even our hardcore socialists joined to the mutual campaign against eastern invaders. 2) Even the hardest core socialist knew what the unification with USSR would mean. 3) The lost territory in Winter War had to be retaken, by any means necessary. 4) Everyone, even the common Finnish soldier, knew something about Nazi atrocities. In the meantime our JEWISH soldiers were gaining Iron Crosses(!) on the front. And without any opposition could held their own synagogues in the occupied lands of Eastern Karelia. 5) Already in the winter of 1941-42 it was clear to practically everyone in our command, especially to Marshall Mannerheim, that Germany would never win. 6) Hitler's visit in Finland at June 1942 (amazing incident since by this time he almost never travelled abroad anymore) to celebrate Mannerheim's 75th birthday is pretty well documented. So much that our radio broadcasters even defied the absolute directive that Hitler was never to be recorded during formal discussions. So much that even unprecedented behavior like Mannerheim's lighting a cigar or Führer's couple of drinks made only latter's officers gasp with amazement. Also from films and photographs of the meeting you can see the Mannerheim's overall annoyance of the whole situation very clearly but also Hitler's very timid demeanor with our great statesman while usually behaving so arrogantly against foreign leaders. 7) President Ryti (by pressure from Mannerheim) sacrificed himself in summer of 1944 making the last ever contract with Germany in order to get the desperately needed weapons (especially antitank-guns) with the promise Finland will never make separate peace terms with the Soviets while he's in charge. In brilliantly planned scheme, 50 000 Finnish defenders in Karelian Isthmus first stopped the 150 000 strong Red Army with disastrous losses (the greatest battle in Nordic history), after which Ryti resigned and a new president Mannerheim had free hands to start negotiations with Stalin/Molotov. 8) The hostilities between Finland and Soviet Union were ceased in the end of August 1944. Finland had to cede 10% of its territory and reoccupy 400 000 Karelian immigrants who, "surprisingly", all decided to move rather than stay in USSR. We also had that last drastic affair to drive out some 200 000 strong German troops still remaining in Northern Finland, who in retaliation burned the whole city of Rovaniemi. Still out of Red Scare our government refused any US aid and paid the huge compensations Russian demanded full between 1945-52. Poor scapegoat Ryti was convicted to serve 10 years hard labour, but due to illness was released in a few years and died soon after. 10) Still no Finnish leader was executed, Helsinki remained the only capital of war-faring countries in the whole Europe never getting invaded (along with London and Moscow) and despite massive bombing campaigns remained almost unscathed thanks to brilliant AA-system and clever distraction tactics (lights were set in the uninhabited parts outside of the city). Soviet Union by its own actions certified that the 1200 km border between the two nations remained even bigger cultural barrier than Rio Grande. So all kudos to Israel, but I think it's us Finns that are in many ways the "chosen people".
Your chosen people sent Russian children and women into concetration camps, where they died from hunger and took part in the genoside siege of Leningrad. Some very chosen Finns with the agreement of the Finnish democracy served in the war- criminal SS units. The 1918 Vyborg Massacre is an example of what kind of relations the new- independant Finns wanted to settle with the Russians. The Finns first started invading Russia during 1918-1922, where the Finnish- led bands committed some more massacres till they were driven away by the Soviets. The Winter War was a kind of a continuation war after those aggressive actions of the Finns.
@@slavashishkin3313 Come on, this is so weak response and you guys affected the US presidential election... :D Anyway: 1) EVEN if there was any atrocities against civilians by the Finnish troops (none documented) I'm sure your Stalinist regime compensated those million times over - not to mention what your partisans did to some of our near-border villagers; 2) the very unwillingness to participate in German North Army's Leningrad campaign to ensure full encirclement was one of the reasons getting off comparatively lightly in afterwar repercussions; 3) some Finns did fight as part of SS-Viking division in the southern part of Eastern Front and secretly we are all very proud of it; 4) 1918-22 massacres? Reds if victorious would had killed a 100 times more, but anyway why the fuck you want to cry about anything that happened AGAINST the bolsheviks?
@@tylsimys67 I' m talking about civilians , not the members of any party. For the Finns it is OK to kill civilians, if they are not finns. Everybody has their own sins. The fact that Stalin was a dictator is a lame excuse for the Finns to commit war- crimes. I take my information from anti- Russian biased English Wiki about Finnish atrocities. I saw a monument dedicated to the victims of the Vyborg massacre, which was documented all right , and on which lie photos of Russian families murdered by the Finnish rasists. The Finnish concertration camps are proved. One can only argue here about the numbers of victims. The Finns wanted Greater Finland and got Lesser Finland. The Finnish unwilliness has got another name: faint- heartedness by other nations. As soon as they get on the neck or suffer considerable losses, they surrender or stop assaulting as they have no fighting any more in their hearts. To meddle in elections is a well- known hobby of the Americans, not the Russians.
Let me preface this by saying that I am Finn who likes history and has read history books about this stuff many times. Here are the issues I have with this video 1. I have not heard any historian or a Finn call Continuation War defensive war. Some have said that it was war to take more land in order to negotiate with USSR so Finland could have its previous land back(ones lost in Winter War). Giving back Karelia in exchange for lost land was likely the aim IF Germany failed. 2. 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. That is the main reason why I think that Finns were on same side but not actual allies. 3. Finland did have exit strategy. There were actually 2 of them. One was when Germany won. Then Finland would take conquered areas and keep them while Germany took rest. Finland would stay as Germanys little friend until the end just to escape being annexed later. Second one was in case USSR turned things around(like they did). That plan was to make enough progress to force USSR in the negotiation table by giving them their land back in exchange of independence and some of the land lost in Winter War. Also not angering USSR too much by participating in Germans action like Leningrad or execution stuff that SS-did. Sadly USSR proved to be too strong for Finland to use Karelia etc. as bargaining chips but still this plan did manage to keep Finland independent. 4. Suur-Suomi thinking was in line with the thinking of the time. Almost every nation had some sort of `these land should be part of my X-country` groups. USSR and Germany had them also. Also the Suur-Suomi was influenced by the `one people one nation` thinking of the time and also had influences of the colonization era ideology.
> 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.
@@ВячеславСкопюк >you find plenty of Finns(judging by their names) calling Continuation War a 'defensive war' here, in the comments Ya. This is first time I see that kind of idiots. Only ways you can stretch logic to make Continuation War a defensive one are these. 1. You just ignore that there was truce between and think it as continuation of same war. 2. You use logic of preventative war/invasion. >or example, Japan, which was the undisputed ally of Germany, didn't fight the USSR at all. Flaved logic Japan didnt see any military value freezing their troops in Siberia for no good reason. I think Japan should have took control of Coastal land of USSR on Bering-Korea part. But USSR wasnt attacking them so there wasnt really any need to attack USSR. I agree that Finnish military was seriously limited but if it really wanted to help Germans(like Italy and Romania did) it could have put more troops on the 2 targets that Germans wanted Finns to do. Even sending handful of troops to Leningrad-battle would have been enough for me to declare that Finns really allied Germany but even that didnt happen(at least I dont know that it did)
@@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
Awesome! Really awesome, mate. I was ignorant to reasons and motivations of the continuation war. I knew that the finnish didn´t really liked the germans, but fear more the soviet expansionism. But i did´t knew nothing beyond that...AH! And that they might been the best alpine troopes of the war...I really enjoy your work. We all do...
Overall you had a lot of things right in the video. But I suppose English litterature of the subject is lacking, and also newspapers and magazines have written a lot of research into this subject to this day, which you can't read. German diplomat Karl Schnurre informed president of Finland May -41 about Molotov's desire to renew attack against Finland (German records of this German-Soviet negotiation exist). The desires of Moscow did not come as a suprise, as Soviet Union after Winter War had kept high tensions between the countries, with shooting down a Finnish passenger plane, making attack mobilizations behind the border including fake radio broadcasts and demonizing Finnish government. It was a common feeling among the Finns that Soviet Union wanted to try military solution again. Diaries of Finnish leaders state many time belief that Soviet Union is about to attack. Between the two wars Finland put a lot of effort to buy and manufacture military equipment. Yes the Germans told 25.05.1941 Finnish officers who were visiting Germany, about German plans to attack Soviet Union. Before that the talks between Finland and Germany had always based on the hypothetical case of Soviet attack against Finland, and it was what for these officers went to Germany this time too, to hear what Germany intended to do in such case. The information of German attack plans resulted secretly small military units to prepare for the war, most remarkably mining waters in the Gulf of Finland, and the mobilization shortly before German attack. The parliament of Finland was never informed and was ignorant of the secret preparations, as were many of the government ministers. These German-Finnish talks and military preparations were very hush-hush, only small clique of government and officers knew about those. Several diaries and messages June -41 just before the start of Barbarossa attack, both by Germans and Finns make a point that Finns never promised to join an attack against Soviet Union. General Erfurth, German liaison officer in Finland: "Finns were stubborn and unwavering, stating they wouldn't start an attacking war, but in case of attacked, they have unanimously decided to defend themselves." German ambassador Von Blücher to German foreign minister about Finnish soldiers: "not one of them was willing for attacking war, but everyone had decided to defend against attack." Finnish War Marshal Mannerheim: "I announced colonel Buschenhagen, that we can't give any guarantee Finland joining the war. Finland has decided to remain neutral unless it gets attacked." Your "Finland was part of Axis" opinion doesn't hold water though. First: only who signed the Tripartite Pact are Axis powers, there are several co-belligernt nations, not only Finland. Second, Germans countinuously tried to get Finland to change their strategy and follow German aims. The Finnish War Marshal made it clear to the Germans many times, that we fight the same enemy, but Finland has an independent strategy. Third, Finland also didn't declare war to any western allied nations, although apparently from Soviet demand Britain declared a war to Finland. One of the requests Germans made many times, was cutting off the Murmansk railroad. The western part of the railroad fell already October -41within Finns' occupied land, but there was another fork, more to the east that still operated. Originally the Finnish War Marshal apparently supported the idea to cut the railroad (and in deed a Finnish 1200 man strong group did attack this eastern part of the railway February 1942, destroying a railroad station and cutting the track for a moment). But it was however a political decision not to cut it off, as Finnish leadership were unwilling to provoke the western allied countries, who had previously symphatized Finland during Winter War. And another request denied was to participate the attack against Sgt Petersburg (Leningrad) and close its supply route "Road of life". Finnish speakers (and those willing to read bad machine translation) might find these links interesting: jput.fi/erillissota.htm jput.fi/Saksalaiskeskustelut.htm jput.fi/Suomi_pelasti_Venajan.htm (Edit: fixed one link, accidentally posted a link twice)
21.06.1941 Finland laid mines on her own national waters in Gulf of Finland. The night of 22.06.1941 Barbarossa Plan went hot: Germans attacked Soviet targets in Poland. Early morning of the same day, Soviet Union bombed several Finnish military targets both by land and sea. Later same day German bombers used a Finnish airfield in their return flight from an attack against Soviet Union. Finland declared neutrality in the German-Soviet hostilities. The SU kept bombing Finnish military targets both land and sea for four days. After aerial bombings of several Finnish cities Helsinki, Turku, Kotka, Tampere, Porvoo, Lahti, Heinola and Varkaus 26.06.1941 Finland declared war.
@@ВячеславСкопюк Ehh, on 30th August 1941 Finnish army surrounded and destroyed 3 Soviet division 43rd 115th and 123rd in Porlammi area. So the Soviet 23 Army had nothing to throw in the KaRU defensive line north of Leningrad. If Finland wanted Leningrad the could have taken it then. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Porlampi
@@ВячеславСкопюк I agree. Finnish army was small, able to operate on their own terms against a shocked and disorganized enemy in - 41, and put up a hell of a fight on their own soil in - 44, but it was no Wehrmacht. Half a million men in total. What could be won by sending a division or two against a gigantic city with more people than the entire Finland? I've been told that there were no significant high value troops stopping us north of L-grad, but what then? Our own Stalingrad? Our war was a game of poker. You play with what you're dealt. Bluffing may cost you everything. Glad we folded in 1944 with our own shirt still on. All in all, Finland lost little, and certainly won in peace. Doing helluva lot better than Russians since - 45. We may have been Moscow's bitch but at least we had bananas. (Ask an older Russian what that means).
@@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.
@@ВячеславСкопюк your only right in one point, there wouldn't been a good situation for Finland capturing a city of the same population size as Finland. And no, you should not believe your own propaganda so much. Finland had only sufferd minor casualties. Soviet had no troops to send in beginning of Septemper 1941as German was approaching from the south. This even Russian historians of to day admits, so way you can't grasp this is above me. My grandfather told me one episode from this battle. 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. You probably won't read this in your book either.
When you discuss who know what in the finish goverment I can help you a bit. I am comming from Denmark and on several ocations the prime- and defense minister had taken decisions without telling nobody. On instance just before WWI started the danish minister of defense had visited a german warship visiting Copenhagen and bring with him all defense plans for Denmark. Those plans was approved by Germany so they didn't need to attack Denmark to secure their flank to the north. Next instance during the cold war there were a goverment decision about not accepting atomic bombs on danish soil. However the prime minister still allowed USA to have atomic bombs in their base in Thule. So when US lost an atomic boom there everything had to be keep secret so the danish goverment and population would learn about it. The defense minister also accepted the danish army to have kanons there could fire small atomic grenates and some officers know about how to get access to those grenates just on the other side of the border in Germany.
The Soviet Union initially invaded Finland on the pretext of taking land in Karelia to protect Leningrad. Had the Winter War gone as planned for the Soviets, there is nothing to suggest that they wouldn't have annexed the country fully. The land the Soviets took in the north had nothing to do with Leningrad and was simply a land grab. It then became a self fulfilling prophecy where the Finns who hadn't been absorbed wanted revenge on the Soviets. The Soviets were agressors in WW2. Just like Japan Italy and Germany. They invaded Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and various places along their southern Siberian border. They just happened to end up as a "good guy" fighting with the allies to defeat the Germans. They never had to return any of their territorial aquisitions. To say Finland was the agressor in the continuation war ignores the previous actions by the Soviets. The alliance with Germany was one of necessity to secure their independence. The allies certainly felt this way as they allowed Finland to join in 1944 when they werent necessary for defeating the axis unlike many of the other states that allied with Germany who they allowed to be swallowed up by the Soviets in 44-45 And unlike Romania Hungary Bulgaria and Slovakia that also took the side of the Germans, Finland didn't fall under the Soviet sphere after the war because the allies deemed her actions from 1941-1944 as justified.
What are the places near the South-Siberian border? In Poland, the tips did not invade. This is the reunion of Belarus and Ukraine. As a resident of Western Belarus, I say this (then they called it Eastern Poland). Soviet troops were hailed as liberators. And this is true, because Poles were engaged in forced polonization, closed schools in the national language, only Polish, parties and public movements from these lands never went to parliament, and vivid public figures went to prison. While in Soviet Ukraine and Belarus, more and more schools opened, and local residents were specially invited to the party apparatus of these states (“Korenization”). And the fact that the Soviet government disappointed some after joining is another story. Well, as for the Baltic countries, formally this is not an invasion. Just there came to power the Communists, who decided to join the USSR. Of course, these Communists were helped by the Soviets, including keeping them in fear of the troops. But formally it is not an invasion. P.S. The Soviets were not the aggressors in the second world war, therefore none of their actions led to the flare-up of the world conflict and the involvement of other countries, such as Great Britain. "Good guys," lol. And who are the good guys in this war? Maybe Poland which got its piece of land from Czechoslovakia? Or France and the United Kingdom who approved this redistribution, although the Soviet Union offered them to unite and maintain an independent Czechoslovakia? And then France, having a 10-fold superiority on the border with Germany, just stood and watched how Poland was beaten, so the good guys do?
The southern Siberian invasion I was mainly referring to was the invasion of Sinkiang/Xinjiang in 1934 and 1937 but they also led expeditions into Afghanistan and all along the Chinese border. I used the term good guys to mock the view that most westerners have of WWII being a black and white situation, a war of good versus evil whereas in reality that is far from the truth. The idea that anyone can be the good guys in a war that kills over 50 million people on all sides is absurd. To the point of eastern Poland that got ceded to the soviets, just because some ethnic groups saw the soviets as liberators doesn't mean that the occupation was a liberation. Ukrainians and Byelorussians may have been more in favor of the invasion due to the cultural and linguistic links with the Soviets, but Poles and Lithuanians certainly wouldn't want to be absorbed into a state of a predominately different language, religion, and most of all political system of beliefs. In that instance, it is a matter of perspective. The same could be said later on when the German army group north invaded the Baltic region and used liberation from the Soviets as a propaganda piece to get many Latvians Lithuanians and Estonians to join the fight against the Soviets and also to drastically cut down on civil unrest and sabotage behind the lines. One reason the Courland pocket came to exist is because the Germans had significant support from the local population who didn't want to be under Soviet rule again. To outright state that the Soviets were not aggressors during the war ignores all the terrible things they did and is how people come to the conclusion the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys". In order to accurately represent history, you can't ignore that bad things that you did regardless of justification, whilst at the same time lambasting your enemies for every bad thing they did. This is the kind of tribalism that leads to such a reductionist view among the general public that they can no longer discern propaganda from history. Everyone has biases, but if you let bias shape your narrative without concern for the facts, you aren't a historian.
@@TheWersum Don't ignore all the points I made just to try and do a stupid gotcha. Finland almost certainly would have remained neutral like Sweden and never fought against the Soviets if they didn't give them a reason to. The Soviets invaded because they thought they could beat up on their weak neighbors and take some land. They made up whatever justifications were necessary to sell the war to the people, the army, the international community. The only thing that separates the Germans, Japanese, and Italians from the Soviets in terms of their aggression and contribution to the outbreak of the worldwide war was that they chose the winning side. Anyone trying to defend the Soviets action pre-Barbarossa should realize that all the Axis powers were using the same process in Czechoslovakia, Manchuria, Ethiopia, Poland and elsewhere. The Axis powers have been lambasted consistently for their unjustified warmongering, yet some people want to say the Soviets were justified when doing the exact same thing. The sycophantic level of pro Soviet bias required to take that stance leads me to believe that any further rebuttals aren't worth responding to.
You should read Mark Solonin's "June 25: Foolishness or Aggression?" Basically, it was USSR that started that war. Also, although I enjoy your videos a lot, I think if you consider USSR/Russian "official" sources you should take the statements from there with utmost criticality. Taking USSR "facts" with face value results in you making too many logical/historical/factual/analytical mistakes...
Again, it is a mistake to take Russian/Soviet "official historians" statements at the face value. They are dependent of government grants and "sing their song", if you take my meaning. Russian government's stance to take revisionist view of history is well known. Solonin's main thesis about the topic is in the book "Peacefully sleeping airfields" where he is showing that the defeat of Soviet Air Force was many-faceted, German attacks being least of those. After actually reading Solonin and his technical/statistical analysis, not only some comments from "official historians" I find it hard not to agree with him.
TIK, you ought to look at ALL the relevant suorces, including the Soviet memorandum that was put up at the same time as the German (Hilger's) memorandum from Molotov - Hitler meeting in Berlin 1941. It was released to the public in 1998 from the Soviet archives. Almost nowhere has that source been analyzed except in Johansen's book which I mention here after. That source shows that Molotov did NOT ask for Hitler's permission to attack Finland a second time despite that myth. Instead Hitler used the opportunity to spead disinformation to the Finns who endevoured the bait obviosly because they were very worried at that time that Hitler would again "sell" Finland like in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This explains why the Finns wanted to hear exactly those news that the Finns received from Germany (ie. that Molotov had as the German's falsely claimed, asked for permission to "liquidate" Finland but Hitler had refused). So the result might have been the Continuation War. Check Hitler's speech 3.10.1941 in which he says (quoted from memory): "Molotov asked me of "permission" to "liquidate" Finland but I had to "refuse". President Ryti repeated those Hitler's words exactly with Hitler's words in his radiospeech on 26.6.1941 after Operation Barbarossa had begun. Germany on the other side needed Finland because of the Swedish iron ore and the Finnish nickel + Finnish troops (about 500 000 men in 16 divisions, about 16 % of the population) added to Operation Barbarossa. Check "Claes Johansen: Hitler's Nordic Ally - Finland and the Total War" (Pen and Sword, Wiltshire, GB, 2016 pages 137-145). Johansen gives all the details. Rgds
I am gigglin to those "1939 - 1945" years, because Finland sure was an *ally* of Hitler in 1939 and 1945 roflmao. Should've been 1940-1944
4 роки тому+1
That source is common knowledge among historians. The problem is that soviet sources aren't always detailed or tell the whole story. It's also impossible to know if it's all or not. The soviet archives still aren't fully opened. There is also little reason to doubt the german sources because the documents about it were captured/after during the war. The sources are not based on the information provided to finns, but official german documents about it. What is talking for the taking of Finland is for example the creation of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelo-Finnish_Soviet_Socialist_Republic Soviet foreign policy towards Finland was also very aggressive until 2Q of 1941.
@ “That source is common knowledge among historians.” Oh, really? That’s astonishing, especially since I haven’t seen it mentioned at least anywhere among those books I’ve read. Please, give some examples of such historian’s books where that source is mentioned since you know. You see, it’s hard to believe you since Claes Johansen’s book is published only in 2016 and he at least does not either mention any other historian’s such texts. Thanks very much for your kind cooperation!
4 роки тому+1
@@thewoodpekker7980 It isn't used as source because it's not reliable information. The problem is that the soviet archives aren't fully open, we don't know what are redacted, not shown or destroyed. The german document is considered stronger evidence, because it was captured after the WW2 from the archives. There is no question about the authenticity and no one had no reason to document anything but the actual discussion there. The source is literally available just by googling: histdoc.net/history/ru/hitler-molotov1940.htm and it was published in historical journals early 1990s already, not 1998. I also seem to remember reading very short version of Molotov's entries about the meeting, but they were totally vague about the detailed content. Do you honestly think historians do not follow these things? I'm sure "internet historians" might miss things like that but if you go to actual history department in university and talk somebody who is versed with WW2 and Soviet Union, this is basic knowledge. Hell, people who have just deep interest in the issue know about it.
Please, give some examples of such historian’s books where that source is mentioned since you know.… "I'm sure "internet historians" might miss things like that." So it turned out that you couldn’t give any sources for your claim’s. So it goes, sometimes. Speak then about internet historian’s. Cheers!
*Pinned Comment*
Part of the reason I wanted to look into this topic was because I’m working on a Courland Pocket 1944 documentary, which will be out very soon. Finland realises the game is up in late 1944 as Army Group North struggles to hold onto the Baltic. Finland may, or may not, be one of the reasons Army Group North gets trapped in the Courland Pocket, so I thought it was worth exploring the reasons why Finland went to war in the first place.
I have begun editing Courland, and I’m hoping to have the first episode out either next Monday or the Monday after. Currently all my focus and effort is going into making that series as good as it possibly can be.
*Selected Sources*
(These were the most relevant)
Lunde, H. "Finland's War of Choice: The Troubled German-Finnish Coalition in World War II." Casemate Publishers, 2011.
Trotter, W. "The Winter War: The Russo-Finnish War of 1939-40." Aurum Press Ltd, 2003.
Wuorinen, J. “Finland and World War II, 1939-1944.” Pickle Partners Publishing, 2015.
Ziemke, E. “The German Northern Theatre of Operations: 1940-1945.” Pickle Partners Publishing, Kindle 2014 (original 1956).
Zeimke, E. “From Stalingrad to Berlin: The Illustrated Edition.” Pen & Sword, Kindle 2014.
“Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV/I, The Attack on the Soviet Union.” Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt (Research Institute for Military History) Potsdam, Germany. Oxford University Press, 2015.
The full list of my history books (currently 333) docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for watching!
Ok interesting. I am from Latvia and I am interested in Courland Pocket and seeing you make documentary about is so awesome. Did you also use Latvian sources?
Unfortunately, I've been limited to English sources. I'm very much aware of the problems of the sources I've used (mainly pro-German) and have tried to compensate, but the reality is that Courland is not really a popular subject in the west and therefore few people have written much on it. My German isn't good enough yet to utilize their sources, and the Soviets wrote practically nothing on the 6 Battles as they saw them as a shideshow to the main event - Berlin. Luckily, Hunt's "Blood in the Forest" has done a good job on describing the Latvians caught in the middle of the conflict, so I intend to lean upon him a little.
@@TheImperatorKnight Ok then. There are few personal accounts of Latvian soldiers. It is quite popular topic here also I can help if you need any translation from Latvian.
Sad you paid too much attention to Mr. Lundes biased opinions...
Late 1944? The peace between USSR and Finland came to be on fourth of september.
Eh, mostly "we can't really stay out of this, might as well go with the side who hasn't invaded and stolen land from us".
@Michael Ellis Yup, Sweden, who was not invaded. 🤔
@Michael Ellis Nah, it's not particularly feasible being sandwiched between two ideologically opposite nations, poised for war. Danes tried it, Norway tried it. Ended up occupied. Admittedly, there was a sentiment in the government, that if we can take back what was stolen from us, and drive the Soviets from Hanko at the same time, well... Not a bad deal at all! 👍
That is shallow!)
@Michael Ellis Your argument has only 1 flaw, it is that we don't know what might have happened if we had not joined in continuation war. Finland has been independent over 100 years and we are doing fine now. So the continuation war had a positive outcome.
This argument is only my imagination product but I guess that reason why the soviet let us stay independent was:
Stalin was a warlord, mass murderer, psychopath, crazy person who (loved to/was good at) killing his own people. He was impressed by how good Finnish people were killing soviets (his people) so he decided to honor us and let us stay as a nation.
I really see this being the reason why Finland stayed independent as likely as your idea that Finland did not need to start a continuation war.
The Stalin bid was a joke😂
But seriously you can't know what night have happend if we had not allied with Germany, we got food ammunition artillery and air support from Germany in ww2, sold nikkel other stuff to Germany and so our economy and defens were so join together with Germany that no one knows how things would have happend had we not allied with Germany.
You tell me what finland sould have done when 1 nation try to conquer them and after peace you belive that the peace treaty was not worth the paper it was written on. Stay alone and try to stay neutral like Norway Denmark Holland.
Also other Baltic state (finland was thought as Baltic state at that time) ANNEXATION HAPEND AFTER WINTER War. Would you be afreid?
As I already said you have no idea what might have happened.
2:44 Mistake: that 12% population was evacuated and was resettled to western Finland
3:33 Transit was for German occupation forces in Norway.
4:01 Defense pact with Finland and Sweden was agreed but Stalin scared Swedes to withdraw.
9:00 This "innocence" argument is weird. The transit agreement was publicly arranged as a deliberate counter against very public Soviet aggressive pressuring -Lunde is a sensationalist journalist trying to "imply" things.
This Lundes "conspiracy revelation"-nonsense is part of it. Finns had agreed to join the war requiring that there is " a direct Soviet provocation"- this is a well known historical fact.
18:18 There was a "historic" claim in form of 1919-1920 unofficial annexation by Finland
19:50 Missing the point. Finlands grant strategy was calculated opportunism. Not just exploit a German victory but also secure Finlands future in Nazi dominated Neuropa.
And if Soviets are not defeated quickly it is time for plan B, and plan C if Soviets start winning.
21:40 There had been plans. These were cancelled after Germans failed to overrun Leningrad- plan B was on. The general idea at that point was just to conserve forces and secure defensive positions.
22:00 That was a German plan. Ryti gave direct "Halte Befehl" on behalf of Finns( Rytis letter to Mannerheim Nov. 5. 1941 )
22:12 Mistake: No Finns on Murmansk sector
24:00 You completely missed the target. Finland had to choose side in 1941 because the Germans were already in the country. Neutrality was no longer an option.
There was no exit strategy because there was no entry strategy. It was just a matter of making most of a situation as it evolved.
that's a gem of a comment. Bit too late, though
If you don't mind me asking, what are your sources?
@@pizzapatriot1769 There is not much literature on this subject in English. One book that has been discussed in Finland is "Der finnische Krieg" by Waldemar Erfurth. The entire 1070-page diary is kept in the National Archives of Finland.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 Well I mean, that's still something right?
@@pizzapatriot1769 In addition, each company kept a journal. The Continuation War is pretty well documented in Finnish. Easier if you tell us the specific thing you're looking for.
Also I want to mention that your map "The Northern Front" is missing one crusial detail. Soviets made alternate railway to Murmansk from the east so cutting the railway from Petroskoi effected little to flow of western support. I remember this because my grandfather served as a sergeant in Finnish infantry in those troops that cut the railway.
Mikä arvo oli?
minun vai ukin?
@@kallekonttinen1738 ukkis
sergeant tuossa lukee..
@@kallekonttinen1738 aaaaaa okei
Finland here (also worked in the Infantry museum) and I've never heard anyone making the case, that we were the victims in continuation war. Continuation war is almost universally considered justified, but we were absolutely the aggressor. Just waited for Soviets to declare war. Also we mined the gulf of Finland a week or so beforehand, so Red Navy can't get out of the ports.
I will mention though, that Finland considered this a separate war in the same conflict. Finland was never part of the German war of extermination, rather we were partners with common foe.
@@adaw2d3222 Ahhhm, I would absolutely want to see a source on that, as I heard pretty much exactly the opposite from a bunch of people.
The wikipedia page "History of the Jews in Finland" mentions 8 Austrian Jews, that were indeed sent to Germany, but this clearly seems to have been a singular instance and not in accordance with the overall Finnish policy towards Jews.
@@adaw2d3222 finland sent six jews to germany. That is of course too much. The finnish jews fought alongside all other finns against soviets, and a few were offered even iron cross. They refused of course.
@@adaw2d3222 I'm sure hundreds of them died. They chose the wrong country to attack. Only one was born in Finland. 6 were unlucky immigrants. At that time there was a strict immigration policy. And Vyborg Synagogue was completely destroyed by Soviet air bombings on the first day of Winter War.
@@adaw2d3222 No they absolutely did not! They also kept their Jewish soldiers in service and explicitly refused to participate in anti-Jewish activities. Show proof. Fool.
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
The enemy of my enemy might be if not a friend at least a co-belligerent.
Ahh, the Good old days when the History Channel had History on it.
Like most Good Old Days, it never happened. That channel was crap from the start.
At least now we can get accurate and interesting analysis.
Why does it have to sound so exiting all the time? know what i mean?
The Hitlery Channel was always mythmongering bullshit. It's better now, because it's honest about the tripe it is.
@@dbszady Now it shows mainly Ancient Aliens ,so I'd say truth and accuracy were never their strong suit.
In my mind, Finland used the Nazis against the Soviet Union just as we used the Soviet Union against the Nazis. It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows, but so does war. It's easy to sit and say what was the right thing to do when you aren't being threatened by a superpower. In the 1st Soviet-Finnish war everybody condemned what the Soviets were doing but did not help much. During the Continuation War the Allies were allied with the Soviets, not leaving the Finns much choice.
'Using the Soviet Union against the Nazis' as you put it, is something of a false equivalence.
*Soviet Union against the Nazis*
LOL
You wish, "you" built up the nazis since the beginning.
@@roberthansen5727 , how so, please expand as it is the same, each side decided to make a pact with one devil to fight the other devil, do you have a different take on that? If so, please expand upon it.
@@roberthansen5727 it's not a false equivalence at all.
Finland asked all the world for help against commie aggression, only Germany came.
2:35 Soviet Union didn't annex 12 % of Finland's population, pretty much everyone was evacuated away from Karelia to other parts of Finland. That's the percentage that previously lived in the annexed territories though.
3:50 Finland and Sweden actually tried to form a defense union but the Soviets opposed it (later Germany would oppose it as well) and it was scuttled when the Soviets pressured Finland and Sweden diplomatically by informing Finland that such a union would be in breach of the Moscow peace treaty. With Denmark and Norway having been conquered by Germany, Finland really had no great power to turn to besides Germany.
The Soviets also shot down a Finnish airliner, Kaleva, in June after they had occupied the Baltic states. If Finland had refused any cooperation with Germany at this point, it's very likely that Finland could've been attacked by both Germany and the Soviet Union when Barbarossa broke out (Germany might've wanted to use the Isthmus to attack Leningrad and the Soviets would've moved in to secure it). Germany would've likely moved in to Petsamo to secure the nickel mines as well. By reconquering Karelia themselves, Finland could stop before Leningrad and not participate in the siege, and thus hedge their bets in case the war didn't go their way (this clearly worked since the Allies didn't demand unconditional surrender from Finland like they did from every other German ally).
So staying out of the war was nigh impossible. With these choices, pivoting towards Germany for military and economic aid (without German food supplies, mass starvation would've been likely in 1942) is the obvious choice since at least they hadn't just attempted to conquer Finland. In the German-Soviet Axis talks (9:40) the Soviets made their desires clear about wanting to finish off Finland (which would've lead to mass executions of the Finnish leadership and mass deportations to Siberia for the general populace by the NKVD , the treatment would've certainly been harsher than that of the Baltics because of the Finnish resistance in the Winter War). No doubt this information made its way to Finland via Germany at some point.
23:41 Finland fought a war against a common enemy with their own separate strategic objectives, if this isn't the case, why didn't Finland participate in the siege of Leningrad and fully commit to cutting the Murmansk railway?
The regular assumption of why Mannerheim didn't want to attack Leningrad or cut the railway was that he was convinced Russia would still be around after the war and doing either of those would be seen as unforgivable by Russia later on. Maybe he was right and this was why the USSR agreed to a separate peace with Finland in 1944. It's also notable that the USSR did not demand that Mannerheim be tried as a war criminal after the war, maybe these things are connected somehow.
The reason Mannerheim gave to the Germans was that he had already sustained too many casualties and saw those operations as too expensive.
Superb analysis. I concur completely. What is your opinion on the lack of defensive fortification after the initial stabilization of the lines along the Soviet border? I think it was a virtually criminal lack of preparation for the ultimate counterattack.
@@chefren77 Yes, that and the defensive victories in summer of 1944 probably convinced the Soviet Union that occupying Finland would be too costly. Besides, at that point all the forces were needed for the drive to Berlin. USA and UK also pressured to give special treatment for Finland.
@@dobypilgrim6160 Well there was the Salpa Line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salpa_Line - but yes this was not exactly handled well.
@@dobypilgrim6160 Well one was lack of manpower (after the initial attack phase, the Finnish army demobilized much of the elder cohorts back to their farms to secure food production) so there weren't enough workers to go around. Mannerheim also committed a huge strategic miscalculation and gave far too much importance to Eastern Karelia where he sent far too many workers and fortification supplies. He thought that conquered area could be used as a valuable bargaining chip in the peace negotiations and wanted to hold to it dearly. In reality of course, those bunkers were abandoned without much of a fight since those divisions had to be quickly transferred to the Isthmus where the main thrust of the Soviet attack came. In general, Mannerheim also believed that the Soviet Union wouldn't bother with Finland until after they had knocked out Germany and that Finland's fate would be decided at a later date (presumably through some negotiations with the Allies). This is despite all of the intel that clearly pointed to a Grand Offensive. This intel also wasn't highlighted enough at HQ and with Mannerheim's way of playing favorites, few dared to raise the issue as much as it should've been. Mannerheim was not a pleasant superior to be around and he made sure no one questioned his authority.
Hi, I am a Finnish history enthusiasts so this topic is very close to my heart. You managed to understand a Finnish situation in 1940-41 very well. Best analysis done by foreigner that I have seen. Couple points I wish to add. This debate about Finland's cooperation with Germany pre Barbarossa is an very old one. Pre 1991 even established historians in Finland wanted to downplay it. Current position among historians is that offcourse we cooperated and this debate about who gave permission etc. is ridicilous. In summer 1940 wast majority (90-95%) of Finns wanted somebody to help us. When you are drowning in Ocean you don't debate is motive of your savior pure or not. We were glad to be with Germany. 400 000 Karelian people wanted their homes back.
Other thing I want to add is this talk that Soviets started hostilities against Finns first in 1941. Offcourse they didn't. German Stukas were bombing Leningrad from Utti airport in southern Finland from the first day of Barbarossa. Soviet counter bombings just gave Finnish goverment excuse to join the attack. We wanted to take our 1940 lost areas back and this was the chance. This excuse to declare war was presented in Finnish radio by president Ryti and it is remembered by people in Finland so this excuse lingers while official historians haven't really bought it ever.
Addition to this topic I want add other possible topic to your list. Situation in Karelian Istmus in june 1944 and why Finnish army reserves were in East-Karelia and not in the Isthmus and what Finnish army HQ did right and what wrong. This is more modern debate among historians in Finland and it gives possibility to observe operational development in this large battle.
Tik has got one of the important event that is often overlooked. Molotovs Berlin visit 1940.
I want to add that according to many Finjish historians , Germany informed the Finnish leadership just a week after the meeting that Molotov wanted to start a new war against Finland. There by Finnish leaders felt that the peace treaty from Mars 1940 was not worth the paper it was written on, and there after actively sided with Germany.
"German Stukas were bombing Leningrad from Utti airport in southern Finland from the first day of Barbarossa."
ja lähde
@@popsey72 Lukenut mistä?
(ja lähde = and source) This is from lt.col. Helge Seppälä's book "Suomi hyökkääjänä 1941" - in english "Finland as an attacker 1941".
@@kallekonttinen1738 do you know if Max Jacobson is available in English?
Just wanted to tell you that you've really inspired me to be more productive! I have a mound of history books that I just let lay around but after watching some of your videos I decided to read one I had on Barbarossa... I finished it in one night and picked up another one today on James Gavin! Thank you man.
That's good to hear! At least one of my Patreons, plus several viewers have asked me about productivity tips, so I may have to provide some soon.
@@TheImperatorKnight I had watched your older video about it but still figured I take the advice you gave.
Concentrate on science subjects or maths ..I studied history & have a degree and it is of no use whatsoever as a career . It might be interesting but unless you want to work in a museum don't bother unless you just want to learn about history .
Interestingly after peace with Soviets in 1944 and later peace with the nazis, Finland was in weird political purgatory trying to balance between the west and the east with the Soviets dictating many things. Finns started self censorship of all media and the West Germans called this Finlandisierung. We also had mostly a single president during the whole cold war but we did well economically.
It's a difficult to understand period.
That President was reportedly a NKVD/KGB agent and Finland had a 'secret police' after WW2 persecuting the old guard. Finland was subject to an Allied Control Commission (USSR and the UK had a small voice). The USA was not part of that Commission as it was never at war with Finland.
Finland goes against expectations
Fuck communism
Now it is the same with EU and muslims. Sadly...
For the Finns it was either take the aid offered by Germany or learn to speak Russian. I have to think they'd have to come to the same conclusion I did even though I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I don't think a 2nd attempt to invade Finland by Russia would be as inept as the 1st.
really? Was Finland so precious to Germany or to USSR to capture it?
@@ВячеславСкопюк I'd have to guess USSR since they actually spent the blood to take the ground and then there's the pact between the USSR and Germany that handed the Finns over to the USSR. In short the USSR invaded and Germany didn't. Do you have another take on it?
@@ВячеславСкопюк Yes it was, why else would they have tried to invade finland in the first place?
@@readhistory2023 as with the Poland, after some point, it was either USSR invasion or Germany occupation. Since the general sympathies of Finnish upper class were with Germany, indeed a number very poor choices were made - they got the first, then the second.
@@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
One important political developement during the interim pease was the possible nordic alliance. Finland, Sweden, denmark and norway were planning defensive alliance, but soviets pressured Finland not to go ahead with those plans. A few wheeks later it was pretty much impossible, due to german invasion of the norway and denmark.
Finland was forced to co-operate with germany. It wasn't just weapons we needed. We would have starved without german food. Due to the world war there was no other source.
Also the planned union between Finland and Sweden which was designed after the Nordic version fall apart due to Germany invading Denmark and Norway was not discussed. It would allowed Finland to step out of the war - in fact one of the prerequisites from Sweden agreeing to it was that Finland would need to give up all claims to and plans for retaking the lost lands (revanchism) to which the Finns had provisionally already agreed. But again both the Soviets and the Nazis opposed that plan so the Swedes shelved it. Why it is interesting is that had Soviets not had any further plans against Finland - that union would have been good for them - but they adamantly opposed it. Which is rather telling of the Soviet motives and plans towards Finland during the Interim Peace.
Food is a good point too. The start of the WW II cut Finland off from the the fertilizers which had previously been shipped to Finland. Additionally it meant that Finland lost some of its most arable land in the Winter War. All in all while Finland had never since the independence been actually self-sustaining that limit was almost reached in 1938-39 (IIRC ~95%) so that was the first time when Finland had not needed to depend on trade to get enough food into the country. Following the Winter War that rate dropped somewhere around 60% which made Finland almost fully dependent on trade just to get avoid starvation. And it made Finland also vulnerable to blackmailing with food - something the Soviets tried during the Interim Peace and what the Germans later tried during the Continuation War.
And after 80 years, against reason, that alliance still does not exist. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't prefer being the safety buffer of Sweden.
Great presentation.
Finland was in a place where the Allies had failed Eastern Europe. They were in a bad position between the two Ideologies. I am not sure they had an option that kept them a free nation. The Soviets had recently attacked them so Stalin was not trusted. So perhaps they feared a German invasion less ?
You summed it up perfectly. Finland had requested help from UK and France vs USSR, and the help was actually promised but it never materialized due to all their forces being tied against Germany. Following Germany occupying France, Denmark and Norway Finland was sandwiched between Germany and USSR. They could not stay neutral. Many say Sweden was neutral but that's incorrect. They supplied Germany with iron ore and traded with Germany. They had no choice either or Germany would have attacked them like they did to Norway. I think if Finland had rejected Germany's troops access to move freely in Finland, Germany would have attacked Finland as well.
@@teemuvesala9575 the Swedes sent volunteer forces to Germany.
The Brest-Litovsk treaty by Germany in WW1 caused Finland to become independent. I think they were more favored towards the Germans from this, along with the fact that the Soviets attacked them.
TIK, I'm from Finland and I like overally the video what you made here. Good, informative and gets to the point. I''d like to point out that around 19:00 you speak about taking Karelia back. At least to my knowledge and experience, the Karelia in this case and usually means the Karelian isthmus and the areas around Lake Ladoga. So it doesn't mean east-Karelia.
Finland doesn't need to "claim innocence" for anything as long as the allies don't have to claim innocence for backing up a a genocidal dictator (Stalin) who annexed countries that had in no way threatened the USSR (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and invaded half of the country the allies supposedly went to war for (Poland). When there's an apology and the admission of guilt for allying with Stalin, then the Finns can admit guilt for allying with Germany. Not a second earlier.
Few things I feel have to be mentioned: Sweden and Finland tried to form state-union already on 1940. Sweden set 2 conditions for that. One was that Finland has to give up trying to return the lost lands of winter war. Finns agreed to this because their situation was already terrible and second invasion looked more than likely. Denmark and Norway had just fallen under occupation and any meaninful help from Britain and France was unlikely to reace Finns. Second demand was to get blessing from Soviet union and nazi-germany for this alliance. Hope was that it would grand them neutral status and keep them out of war. Needles to say, this idea was shot down by germans and soviet. They had their own plans and visions for these lands.
This alliance proposal was mentioned on book "Toteutumaton valtioliitto" ('Unrealized union') by Ohto Manninen. Finnish parliament discussed it on march 1940, but this and other potential military alliances fell off public debate when Soviet-Union denounced these plans as breach of Moscow peace treaty. Following negotiation with swedes, brits and germans were kept unofficial and secret; It probably explains some of the confusion in current, English-speaking, public depate.
In general, year 1940 was very grim time for smaller northern states. Hopefuly you can dive more on political decision making in coming videos because It is crucial aspect if one wants to understand logic behind of action on finnish-soviet front. Ziemke and Lunde as sources arent enough for that.
I remember seeing even Russian documentaries note how Finland was unwillingly to tighten the noose around Leningrad. And despite having the strength to, they more or less stopped at the prewar border, thus giving the Soviet defenders room to breath and in turn, became a core reason why Stalin accepted the Finn's change of sides later. Did you find any information on this?
>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
@@ВячеславСкопюк Well I realized Putin is a weirdo with his half-naked riding photos. 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.
Stalin didn't leave Romania with any independence though. The Finns however did retain it, and even managed to stay on good terms with both sides in the Cold War (something few nations managed).
@@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
@@ВячеславСкопюк Well i can see that you are a brainwashed troll of the all knowing Putin.
@@apilolomi you can see with what? Obviously you don't have eyes on your ass of a head
Well i think the political situation in 1940 drove Finland in to the arms of Germany. If the soviets had not tried to invade Finland again or had not in the first place Finland would have more than likely sat this one out
In the first days of Barbarossa Soviet air force attack still neutral Finland pushing it to war. Finland wasn't inform about Barbarossa, and without that bombings Finland could stay neutral.
@@horatio8213 this video disproves all of your points.
@@horatio8213 strangely, 'neutral Finland' provided troops to attack Murmansk. Look 'Operation Silberfuchs'
@@horatio8213 Thinking that the only reason we went to war was because the soviet bombed Finland is an old myth. We mobilized before hand, we had German troops in the north as well as a German division in karelia, we had German planes landing and setting off to attack the soviets before it etc. Plus attack plans dont happen over night or the obviously agreed attack arrangements with German troops
@@ВячеславСкопюк First, Soviet Union keep bases on taken finish teritory, Hanko naval base forced by Mocov Treaty! And force major contribiusion that hit german interes included in soviet-german agrements. Germans just protect interest in Finland. What goverment of Finland have to do squeez between two totalitarian monsters!
Second in this video lack of bigger picture of relationship between III Reich, Soviet Union and Finland after Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Anexation of Baltic States and international ciritic of Soviets when they attack Finland!
Third, from start Soviets knew about german forces in Finland but protest when they realize that is not only small sentry forces but something more.
Fourth. Finland was basicly pushed to war when both Germany and USSR preparationn to invade eachother.
And for the last TIK forgett that Fins have support from UK and USA to stay independent from Stalin's rule. USA and England never agree that Finland is III Reich ally and for the long time didn't reconize soviet claim to land taken from Finland. And Finland go to war when Soviet bombs civilian targets, not germans units or bases!
I am not Finnish, though i do very much admire the music of the great Finn composer Jan Christian ("Jean") Sibelius, but the global map looks really ugly with Russia / Soviet Union / Russia occupying large portions of the Kola Peninsula (including the White Sea and Lake Lagoda). It should ALL go back to the Finns, at least for aesthetic purposes...^^
Aww hell yeah! A video about Finland by TIK! Tortillat avataan!
Vaan aika paljon virheitä kaverilla. Harmi että oli lukenut vain Lunden kirjan.
Ei isoja virheitä. Tärkeät asiat ovat oikein. - No big mistakes. Important things are correct.
Awesome video, once again, thank you!
Finally took the time to sign up to Patreon and support you with a few bucks a month, your work is more than worth it!
Truly love this channel, you never cease to amaze me when it comes to the thorough research you put in every video!
im HeH
I agree that Finland were the aggressors but I don’t see why it was wrong, they probably did want their territory back and thought that during Barbarrossa was the best moment
They wanted quite a bit more and participated in the siege of Lenin grad starving up to a million civilians to death
@@tatianadudnakova4779 finland didnt take any part of siege of leningrad
@Finnish Fellow hey swamp boy,....finland is russ land for eons,....as germany untill elba river and sweeden,......war for motherland is continuing,...this time we will not left one allive nazi nato isis talmudic therorist filth on our land cheers from serbian
@Finnish Fellow hhahha like your spirit,..a like fins....but still finland is ours as sweeden,...and prussland soon to be liberated...no humor can help against 27 mah speed nukes,......and btw i m building hammam and sauna in my countryside house,...and having place on the sea,.....so i doubteed it,...i m from millitary pashtrovich clan with knight holding sword and choped turk head in heands on the fammily insignia,.....,..soon we r with sorab russ armmy in serbian luisitanian cities berlin nd drezdeen...cherio from Mother Serbia
@Finnish Fellow and p.s.if you cut the supllies for leningrad russian border with be already at norway near kristiansund where it is actully....norvigians our brothers are our neighbours...you just understood..the unevitablle.cheers from Ingwar.Igor
During the "continuation war" public opinion in Germany (and also in Finland) held that the two countries were in fact brothers-in-arms. The attitude toward Russia was extremely hostile among Finns. This was ofcourse understandable due to the experience of winter war in 1939-40. My grandparents for example had to escape from their homes in Karelian isthmus at the start of the winter war in 1939 so I am not judging ordinary Finns for their vengeful attitudes but in my opinion political and military leadership should have known better. That being said it should be noted that German armament that Finns received in the summer of 1944 (most notably panzerschercks and -fausts) were crucial in defence against Soviet attack.
@Dark Shield During the siege of Leningrad Finns never wanted to attack the city and even though there were differing opinions among the military leadership there wouldn't have been public approval for such actions. I would say that we did participate in the siege hesitantly but we never had genocidal plans against the Russians like Germans had. And after WW2 the Finnish-Russian relations have always been relatively good.
"but in my opinion political and military leadership should have known better. "
Finally some reasonable Finn. Sorry for your grandparents but they would be compensated financially ( if there could be a compensation for a home) by the Soviet Union if the Finnish government had agreed on the Soviet demands. The financial compensation was negotiated (read Tanner if you're interested).
And the border at the isthmus was not the stumbling point of the negotiations, the Finns were ready to move the border, it was Hanko. But even there with Hanko, Stalin was ready to compromise with some islands SE of Hanko.
@@simplicius11 It is true that the Finnish goverment preceding Winter War was verry uncompromising and I agree that the military base in Hanko was probably the hardest part to swallow for the Finns in the list of Soviet demands in 1939. After the war we had to give a military base to the Soviets anyway.
@@simplicius11 sure, however that compensation would have been short lived after Stalin would then set the second phase of his plan into place and that would have been complete annexation of Finland after taking all the most important defensive locations from the Finns in 1939. The war(s) where inevitable, unfortunate for sure, however a reality.
@Dark Shield you should had been more angered by the Spanish who literally attacked Leningrad which sacked the city and utterly halted 1943 pincer Guards Operation Lunar Star, because the fascist Spaniard Blue Division were so ferocious opponent, took back Southern Leningrad in exchange for sacrificing the rail way to the elite soviet troops. However, the soviet failed to encircle the 18th army who the defensive supply lines of the Azule Division give the tank Guards hell, antitank/ artillery shelled the advancing soviets which collapsed.
Hey TIK, if you still wish - i can give first hand accounts of Soviet, Nazi, then Soviet (again) occupation and life during it, given a primary source (my grandfather, while he's still alive, since his health isn't doing so well, and it would be my way of honouring him, and his memory, since he was excited to hear that his stories would be of use to a great historian, such as yourself). Oh, and are you planning to cover the Winter war in it's entirety maybe? Or some less known, dubious subjects like the Franco-British Madagascar plan?
As a Finn I've heard that Germany hinted us in winter war that it will be beneficial to us to accept the peace treaty, because "we would have the areas back with interest".
Not sure if this is just a rumour or it actually happened.
I've not heard that before, and none of the sources I used mentioned that, so I would assume it's more of a post-event-hindsight outlook on the events. That said, evidence may be out there to support it... but until it's brought to light, assume it's not the case.
@@TheImperatorKnight Finland sent an ambassador called Toivo Kivimäki (former prime ministeri 1932-1936) to Germany in early february 1940 while the Winter War was at a crucial point. Mr. Kivimäki asked for German assistance against the Russians but the Germans weren't really being helpful or forthcoming, so Mr. Kivimäki alluded that our wartime government was about to accept the Allied promise of assistance from the north. This changed the German position, as an allied intervention was a clear threat to their interests in Swedish iron. The Germans set up quickly a meeting between Hermann Göring and Mr. Kivimäki on February 22nd.
A very close friend of Kivimäki, Ragnar Nordström, wrote in his memoirs in the end of 1940s, that Göring had said the following: " Remember, you must make peace at all cost. I guarantee, that when we soon go to war with Russia, you will get whats yours with interests". Ragnar Nordström was very much involved in wartime governments matters and a political grey eminence, so you might make the assumption that he would know what he is talking about.
This story is also somewhat confirmed by the actions of personal emissary to Göring, Josef Veltjens, who was selling weapons to Finland despite Hitler banning the sale and delivery through Germany. Veltjens has been mentioned several times in Finnish accounts of war as an unofficial ambassador from Germany who had high level talks with the main players throughout Winter War and Continuation War. Veltjens war Göring's man in Finland and talked directly with Prime Minister Ryti and Marshal Mannerheim during the Winter War, although descriptions of these discussions are not known.
There has been some debate over Nordströms claims veracity, but Professor emeritus Heikki Ylikangas has researched this matter and has provided in my opinion a convincing case for Germany influencing Finlands decisionmakers into suing for peace in the hopes of revanche later in his book "My interpretation about the Winter War" or Tulkintani talvisodasta (2001)
@@TheImperatorKnight The claim is from a letter of T.M. Kivimäki (Finland's ambassador to Berlin) dated June 1941, where Kivimäki says that he remembers how Hermann Göring advised the Finns to accept the peace in February 1940 at any cost so Finland would get everything back and more. Hermann Göring made the same claim and said he's proud how the Finns followed his advice and accepted the harsh peace in March 1940. However, Germany was reluctant to signal any public support to Finland until July-August 1940, and Finns accepted the peace only after the Winter War front was on a brink of collapse.
So, was it really the case?
(I guess I'll find out later, but I wanted to post this first lol).
Great work. But you didn't mention that Finland did join the Anti-Commintern Pact
Of course it was planned. No Finn in their right mind denies it. Nevertheless it's called continuation war for a reason, in my mind it was righteous war considering what had happened earlier in winter war. Also Finland didn't fight "total war" against Soviet union. Finland refused to take part in the Siege of Leningrad or cut the Murmansk railway road. Also Finland was very clear about not being part of the Axis. Finland didn't share the Nazi ideology.
So was Finland the aggressor? Yes. Was it justified? I think yes. Technically Finland did wait until the Soviet union made the first move but Finland was ready to answer immediately.
For anyone out there questioning Finland's actions and motives 1941-1944, I would kindly point out that this is Stalin's Russia we are talking about. Stalin's. If you think that a reasonable, peaceful and balanced outcome was ever on the table, you obviously haven't been paying attention.
There was quite a peaceful outcome out of Winter war
@@ВячеславСкопюк You're joking, right?
@@bobbleheadelvis6607 Nope. I don't remember anything particularly bad coming to Finland after that and before June of 1941
@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
@@ВячеславСкопюк Many small things maybe to thives, murderes, Communazies, Putin's arse lickers and other crooks but to normal people, and especially to leaders of Finland, it ment that Ruskie Commies, Kremlin Bastards, were not to trust. The pay back time came in the summer of 1941.
Proud to say that many, many, many of my relatives joined our Great Patriotic War against the red fascists.
Great video, hope that you will make more on the subject of the Finnish front
As to your conclusion that Finland was part of the Axis and an aggressor, I agree, but will also say that they were rather unique in that role, since they didn't eventually fall under German/nazi control as practically every other European member of the Axis did, and therefore they never became involved directly in most of the darker sides of the conflict (I'm not saying warcrimes weren't committed by Finns, since any army at war is most likely not able to claim such a thing, but I don't think there was ever a dedicated effort in such a direction).
I think what people balk at is the idea that an "enlightened" democratic country can ally itself with a bunch of brutal dictatorships, but to those who think like that I would point out that all of the democratic nations on the "good" side allied themselves with the Soviet Union, which was also a brutal dictatorship.
Anyways, thanks for filling up the TIK cravings with another great video :)
Finland saw an opportunity to fight commies and they took it. Nothing wrong with that
Hey TIK, something similar to this video, I'm wondering what goals other nations had in the invasion of the Soviet Union.
You spoke about Finland's conquest of 'Greater Finland' and Eastern Karelia, what about Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Italy? What would those countries have acquired if they were to defeat the Soviets?
We know of Germany's goals however not much is spoken about its other allies when it comes to the invasion of the Soviet Union.
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
One question is, did they have any better choice?
Being neutral resulted in the following for Romania (from wikipedia): "In 1940 Romania's territorial gains made following World War I were largely undone. In July, after a Soviet ultimatum, Romania agreed to give up Bessarabia and northern Bukovina (the Soviets also annexed the city of Hertsa, which was not stated in the ultimatum). Two-thirds of Bessarabia were combined with a small part of the Soviet Union to form the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. The rest (northern Bukovina, the northern half of Hotin county and Budjak) was apportioned to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Shortly thereafter, on 30 August, under the Second Vienna Award, Germany and Italy mediated a compromise between Romania and the Kingdom of Hungary: Hungary received a region referred to as "Northern Transylvania", while "Southern Transylvania" remained part of Romania. Hungary had lost Transylvania after World War I in the Treaty of Trianon. On 7 September, under the Treaty of Craiova, Southern Dobruja (which Bulgaria had lost after the Romanian invasion during the Second Balkan War in 1913), was ceded to Bulgaria under pressure from Germany. Despite the relatively recent acquisition of these territories, they were inhabited by a majority of Romanian speaking people (except Southern Dobruja), so the Romanians had seen them as historically belonging to Romania"
Romania obviously wanted to reclaim territory seeded to the soviet union, as well as a expansion of territory. Hungary pretty much wanted the bounty of Ukraine and the caucuses oil fields.
@@seniortrostky7124
Romania was given a part of Ukraine
(Transnistria) to administer.
Did Germany ever say the capture of the Murmansk port/ railroad is VITAL to winning the war?
You forgot to add Romania to the list of countries that suffered Russian aggression based on the Ribbentrop-Molotov secret aggression protocol.
The 420 000 Finns from the lost areas,did certainly NOT become Soviet citizens.The Finnish Army evacuated all of them to Finland.None of them wanted to live in the Soviet Union.
It has been pretty clear for some time now, that the documentaries and books outside Finland still have the apologist view of the events in 1940-41. That was prevalent in Finland until the end of Cold war and Soviet Union, for mainly political reasons. The truth was always known for historians and people alike, but never really discussed in a serious manner.
After 1991, "the Truth" changed and many other aspects of the wars in 1939-45 have come to light. Partly because of the fruitful co-operation between Finnish and Russian historians. Unfortunately, the situation in Russia has changed lately, and there is a new wave of revisionism flowing through the historians, which means that even the start of Winter War is again debated. The view that Finland actually was a fascist country, secretly allied with Nazi Germany from the early 1930s and the aggressor in both wars, is again becoming more accepted. And that is unfortunate.
There are still people in Finland who believe the earlier "truth" and deny all wrong-doing. Even the concentration camps for the displaced Soviet civilians who were captured in 1941 are too much for some people. Or the mistreatment of POWs. Then again, there are documents that prove neither was officially meant to exterminate people, but it was more a matter of the situation in 1941-42 (food shortage and destroyed infrastructure in Karelia). And it is also quite certain, there were some people in the administration of those camps, who weren't really good at it, or did actually have racial prejudice to the Soviet people and did bad things on purpose. Majority of the deaths in both types of camps happened in the winter of 1941-42 and after that, conditions got a lot better and mortality rate lowered considerably.
Another thing that is still a bit of taboo in our history of the second world war, are the executions of our own soldiers for mutiny. There is some research done in that area, but there has been a lot of covering up during times, or records have been destroyed unintentionally, so it is hard to figure out all details. I think there are some "skeletons in the closet" still to come out.
Maybe the narrative outside Finland suffers from the lack of recent studies translated to other languages? That's something that should be corrected, as I can clearly see a lot of growing interest among foreigners to the history of our country. And to be quite frank, the history of Finland is often very much influenced by wars.
well, being a Finn, I think it should be freely discussed, if we forget our history, we will be cursed by repeating it. So talk about the good as well as the bad. However let me now say I will forever be indebted to the Finnish heroes back then, I would not have been born in a free country without their sacrifice to defend Finland's freedom. All my pride and honour to these great heroes. My great uncle is one of then a fallen soldier in Dec 1939 in the Winter War. All of my honor to him for fighting for what was just and right.
As a Finn, I've never observed any of those topics being treated as a taboo. Perhaps I'm too young - born in -87. But to me it's always been a natural fact that Finland was the agressor in the Continuation War, that we wanted to expand beyond the old border, and that we kept Soviets in camps. I've thought it's common knowledge everywhere.
Sadly, I too have noticed that the Russians are revisioning their version of the past, full throttle. I've had to argue endlessly with Russians who claim that Winter War was Finland's fault, that Finland was a fascist country and that Finland took part in the siege of Leningrad. Such facepalm worthy bs. But they seem to believe it themselves. Russia is really going down the drain these days. With these attitudes growing, it's best that each of Russia's neighbors has a good defense plan.
Continuation War, not "Continuation War". It didn't drop from the thin air - the hostilities of previous winter - continued. The name already tells it was pre-planned. In a way it was the same war continuing. There was ony a seize fire, no peace treaty had been written. What had changed, was that now Germany had started hostilities with Soviet Union. 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. After that declaration the Finns did attack. But Soviets had started the hostilities - again.
Did the Finns have plans, pre-planned to attack? OF - COURSE! About half a year had gone, when Finns had to give territory to the Soviet Union after a war. Would you believe they wanted them back? In case an opportunity presented itself, could you imagine 300k people wanted their homes back? And it wasn't like the SU didn't plan to attack again.
Of course I wish they had just licked their wounds, and not attacked in Soviet Union - we lost even more the next time a seize fire came. And this time a peace treaty too. Maybe they shouldn't have allowed the Germans to come to Lapland. So, would UK have come to help Finland, if Stalin attacked again - or USA? For us Finns THEY were the traitors. They had failed their promises given during the 30', the latest when the Soviet attacked. While I understand they stopped those plans, after Finland asked and got help from Germany, it felt hypocritic for the Finns - like thanks for nothing guys. This big guy is beating me, and you bail - I had to ask that madly grinner creep to help, or I was a goner.
Sweden was neutral. It was Germany, or becoming part of the Soviet Union. Is that what you wish had happened to Finland? Thanks. We would be then like the Polish coming to UK looking for cheap jobs, after spending a generation under the Socialist dreamworld. I'm glad Adolf didn't win, but without his help we would be half Josefs ourselves. Those whose grandpa's wouldn't have died in Siberia. Don't know if my father would've been an indoctrinted commy then, or not existing, if the Soviet gospel preachers had killed him when taking my grandpa to the gulags. It's not a theory to speculate for me, but a shaky stand at the edge of an abyss.
Let's say the Germans were bombing UK, further away than London, destroying ships in Atlantic. Do you want to say UK didn't plan any counteractions, even attacking the mainland, if the opportunity came? Or maybe the Anglo-Saxons should have just accepted French as their language, because the Normans wanted? Russians didn't attck Finland 1st time in 1939. there was more than 1000 yeas of earlier cases, which nowadays would go to Hague. It's easy to bully the smaller guy, so go ahead and choose the side of the bully - kick the loser of WWII a bit more.
The big red bully wouldn't leave us alone, when he thought we would join the gang of another one, the raging bully. Why would we do that? We lived next to the red bully. You think we planned to take the first punch for the raging bully? Finland wanted to be left alone, but Stalin came to whoop our ass, so he could be sure Germans wouldn't come here. Well, after he beat us, the Germans came. He made happen the prophecy he feared: what he feared, he got.
And you want to suspect Finns wanted to join the raging bully for his nice nature? He had his racial cleansing program for the Jews. In Finland the Jews served in the Finnish army. Germans dropped their jaws in Lapland, when they saw Jews waving them chearily from the neighbouring trenches. Comrades in arms. The Germans had to ask their superiors how to conducted with these Jews.
They got orders to treat them as the other Finns. These Finnish Jews have written books, and there are TV documents of them. Many of these war vets wee allowed by Finalnd to go to Israel, when they fought for their independence. Some of them took Israeli citizenship, some returned to Finland, and visited sometimes to help them build the country. At the same time UK tried to stop the Jews from going to Israel. People who had no home in Europe, and who nobody in Europe wanted.
Well, when Finland was bombed in 1939 - there were British journalists in Helsinki who witnessed that, and reported in the news papers in UK. Also Americans were in Helsinki, and I guess French too. Soviet foreign minister Molotov said they were bread. Molotov's breadbaskets they were called after that. This is the reason why there's now a crude weapon called Molotov's cocktail. It's not a Finnish invention - but the name is. It's a drink to go along with the bread Molotov distributed.
Why Finland allowed German forces to come to Northern Finland? Yeah, a seize fire with superior enemy was signed in March. They The only ally available came to help to defend the country, which Finland didn't have the manpower to do after recent losses. Well, Mannerheim said this was also the reason he went over the old border North of Ladoga, to have enough manpower to defend the borders. Was it so, I'm not a soldier. But it seems to follow he same logic why Finns ask Germany to defend Lapland. As your video also said, the Lapland Germans didn't seem to plan to advance very far, just stop Finland from collapsing.
While this might look as a provocation to the SSSR, well they did come across the border in -39 without a Finnish provocation. They just staged one, a legitimation for their attack. They said Finns shot first across the border with artillery. If it doesn't sound logical, that Finns. to the last straw, would avoid irritating a superior enemy who had just occupied their 3 southern neighbours - then maybe it would suffice as a proof of the Finnish innocence, that Finland didn't have such modern artillery or shells to shoot such an artillery barrage as had happened in Mainila? A place in Soviet side of the border, because 1939 is not the 1st time the Russians had taken Finnish lands. It had strted in the 11th or 12th century, and in the 14th century they were stopped. Well, with the help of Swedes, who held Finland circa 1100-1808, or circa 1300-1700 in the Eastern Finland.
So it wasn't as simple that the Soviet were only victims in the WWII - the 'good guys' who suffered innocently. Yes, they were that, when the Germans attacked. But in 1939 they were themselves the aggressors against smaller countries - not just Finland. In addition to the Baltic countries and Finland, they had just taken half of Poland earlier in -39. You could check the UK papers of -39.
>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
@@ВячеславСкопюк There were no German troops in Finland before the Winter War Nov1939-March 1940, and during most of it. In the end part of it, Jan-March there were some military advisors and salesmen, who sold some equipment. But no German troops yet. There were even some British volunteers, until Finland started to receive help from Germany. If there wasn't, USSR would have conquered Finland.
Those forces came before the 1941 counterattack. So attacking Finland Stalin got what he feared: German troops in Finland. Without the Winter War Finland wouldn't have joined the war: Nothing to gain, much to lose.
@@timomastosalo
>So attacking Finland Stalin got what he feared: German troops in Finland.
he didn't feared German troops in Finland particularly.
Thanks to finnish defensive victories 1944 summer in Äyräpää-Vuosalmi, Viipurinlahti, Tali-Ihantala, Nietjärvi and Ilomantsi line, mad man Stalin finally agreed to make the peace treaty and Finland kept their independence.
Without those battle victories finnish defensive lines would've collapse and Soviets next step ofc, occupy the whole Finland.
Thank you for this tik!
Hope you liked it Lenin :)
@@TheImperatorKnight yeah i did keep up the amazing work!
Much have been written about this Continuation War. In particular in Finnish and also by Swedish historians and volunteers that participated. To put this in context, keep in mind that after the Winter War defeat, the imminent treat to Finland's existence was only temporary on hold. Everyone in Finland believed by autumn 1940 that this treat was still real. Already before Germany occupied Denmark and Norway it was an attempt to create a defense alliance including Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden. Another attempt to secure Finland was discussions about a defense union with Sweden during spring and summer 1940, but the latter was not liked either by Germany and was finally dropped after pressure by Molotov in December 1940. The last seen "survival option", was Germany, a "safe haven" that remains to prevent a Soviet annexation. Between the Winter War and the Continuation War, Finland's had limited supply of crops and fertilizers - thus food shortage was common. Some was supplied from Sweden and Denmark and later Germany. In this way Germany get some leverage against Finland. At this time parts of the Finish government was not informed about the ongoing secret Finish-German negations which involved only highest political and military leaders. During this period before the outbreak in June 1941, Finland purchased military materiel to build up it's military power, from Germany, mainly captured weapons. At that time the idea that Finland could recover lost land if they collaborated was floated by the German high command.
Source: "Karelska Näset 1944 Nordens öde avgörs" by Johan Lupander & Jan-Christian Lupander. ISBN 978-91-1-302170-6 (Swedish)
Great commentary and quite balanced IMHO. I would simply add that the Soviet Union was an existential threat to Finland's existence. It should be noted that the Western Powers did not offer her a guarantee of independence like they did to Poland. So the Finns were on their own and were forced into a very difficult situation. Although I am not sure of this, I believe the Soviet Union was condemned and expelled from the League of Nations as a result of her attack on Finland in 1939. I do not consider Finland as part of the Axis, and apparently the Allies didn't either as it is my understanding that the United States did not declare war on Finland. Any country, including Finland has a right to defend herself, and Germany was the only country that could supply her with the weapons she needed. No one else was stepping forward.
>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
@@ВячеславСкопюк Finland was a co-beligerment, not an ally. They only fought to regain territory and fight the Soviets back. The west had abounded them and their only hope was to accept german aid. Hell, germany attacked Finland int he winter war and after on the lapland war with extreme prejudice not to mention hitlers rage at Finland not helping the germans take leningrad. Not exactly axis material, just a country with it's back to the wall that had to use the cards they'd been dealt
@@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?
@@ВячеславСкопюк and why would it be bad if Finland was an ally of Germany?
@@JM-dw8eq idk. Ask @dbassman27 and @Corporal Shephard
I don't know if you have ever heard/read this, but here is a transcription (from finnish to english, the original language is obviously german) of a meeting, that was accidentally recorded by a finnish sound technician who was hired to record Hitlers and Ryti's opening cermonial speeches, that took place in 1942 in a train cart where Hitler discusses the current situation on the eastern front with the high command of the finnish defence forces. Just a heads up, this is a pretty big wall of text.
Hitler: A major threat, one that we can only now fully asses in it's entirety. We didn't accurately know how mighty and monstrous this beast is.
Mannerheim: We really had no idea of this during the winter war. It was evident that they were well equipped, but as well equipped as they were in reality! And there is no doubt, as to what they had in mind now.
HItler: Artists at their craft (soviets)! Absolutely! They have the most horrendous armament you can imagine. I mean, if someone had told me prior, that a nation possessed the battle readiness of 35000 panzers (t-34 etc.), i would have told them, that they are insane!
Unknown finn: 35000??
Hitler: 35000! We have already destroyed more than 34000 tanks in total. If one of my generals, at my cabinet, had told me prior 35000, i would have replied: You good sir, see everything 10 or 20 fold, it is madness, you are seeing ghosts. I didn't think it was possible...
Hitler: We had found factories earlier, one in Kramatorsk for example. They started building there two years ago and we didn't have a clue! Now there is a factory there, that employs 30000 workers on it's first stage and 60000 at it's full capacity. One single (soviet) panzer factory. We took control of it and it is a GIGANTIC factory. Massive labour forces, that regardless live like animals.
Unknown German: In the Donetz region!
Mannerheim: Yes, but you should consider that they have been free to rearm themselves for almost two decades, no over two decades, 25 years. And all that time they have spent solely on rearming and preparing.
Hitler: Yes, well.. that is as is. I had no idea, but even if i had, i would have felt an even heavier burden. But in that case, i would have made up my mind with even more reason, as there would have been no alternatives. It became clear to me in the winter of 1939-1940, that this would eventually happen. I just had a nightmarish feeling. For a fight at two fronts would have been miserable, we would have broken then. I see it clearly now.
Hitler: Indeed, back in the fall of 1939 i wanted to execute a campaign to the west, but the bad weather kept stopping us, as all of our armaments were, and still are, "beautiful weather" equipment. It's highly effective and good equipment, but it's made for clear weathers, as we have seen during this war. It was made for the western front.
Hitler: And we were convinced, as we have been since the dawn: you can not fight a war during the winter. And we also tested our German tanks and other German motor vehicles, but not to modify them for winter warfare. We test drove them, so that we could prove, that fighting a war during the winter is impossible. It was a different type of approach...
Hitler: In the fall of 1939 we were faced with the same question over and over again, and i still absolutely wanted to attack. And i was convinced, that the fighting in France would be over in six weeks. It was only a matter of, whether or not we could move, and it just kept raining. And i know this french terrain very well, and even i couldn't ignore the viewpoint, that most of my generals had, that we wouldn't have the force necessary, we couldn't have used our panzers, and we couldn't have deployed our planes on these temporary airfields, due to the rain. I knew northern France, i was there for four years, in the great war.
Hitler: And then there was the delay! If i had taken care of France in 1939, the path of world history would have been very different. And so i was forced to wait until 1940, and regrettably it wasn't feasible before the may 10th. The 10th of May was the first clear day. On the 10th of May i attacked immediately. On the 8th, i gave the order: on the 10th, we attack! And afterwards we had the ordeal of moving all of our troops from west to east and we had to deal with Norway.
Hitler: And at the same time, i can state this calmly these days, we encountered major misfortune. The weaknesses that had appeared firstly in Italy due to the situation in North Africa and secondly the situations in Albany and Greece - a grave misfortune. We had to help. It meant foremost, that we had to disperse our panzer and luftwaffe divisions. Just as we were preparing for the eastern front, we had to dispatch two panzer divisions, two closed divisions, and then a third one, to cover the major losses over there. The battles in the desert, they were very bloody...
Hitler: Obviously later in the east, we were missing all these forces and there was no other alternative, than the inevitable decision. At that time, i was negotiating with Molotov and it became obvious when Molotov left the meeting, that he had decided to start a war. I parted ways determined, to start the war before he could if possible! Since the demands that the man made, were obviously aimed towards conquering Europe.
Hitler: During the fall of 1940, we were constantly debating, should we let the situation end in a falling out. Back then i recommended the Finnish government to negotiate, to buy time and stall, because i was constantly afraid, that in the late fall of 1940 the Russians would attack Romania and seize the oil springs. And in the late fall of 1940, we wouldn't have been ready! If Russia had invaded Romania in the late fall of 1940, Germany would have been finished. Because we need those oil springs and it would have been accomplishable with 60 Russian divisions.
Hitler: We didn't have any units in Romania back then, the Romanian government sided with us far later. And the oil reserves that we had, it was ridiculous, they only really had to man the oil springs.
Hitler: I couldn't start a new war in september - october 1940, not with our armaments, it would have been impossible. And our preparations for the march to east hadn't progressed that far. And we still had to reorganize our troops in the west, since obviously we had suffered losses there as well. It was impossible to start a new campaign prior to the autumn of 1941. And if the Russians had occupied Romania and conquered the oil springs in 1940, we would have been helpless in 1941.
Hitler: We had our great German production, but the amount panzer divisions consume, the amount the luftwaffe consumes, it is something appalling. It it's the kind of consumption, that exceeds imagination. And without that 4-5 million tons of oil from Romania, we couldn't wage war, and we'd be forced to leave it be.
Hitler: Even prior to that, i was extremely concerned. It was also the main reason, for my goal to make it past those times with diplomacy, until we were ready to respond to this extortion like pressuring. Since their demands, were pure blackmail. They could extort anything from us, since the Russians knew that we were tied to the west, they knew that they could extort anything from us.
Hitler: Only when i met Molotov, i told him that we couldn't meet their demands, those demands are unacceptable.
Hitler: For myself, the negotiations were over the moment i stepped into the room. There were the four parts. One of the parts, was the right to defend themselves from threats from Finland. He told me, as soon as i entered the room, that Finland was threatening them. He said that they are preparing for actions against soviet friendlies in Finland, that they are persecuted, and that a superpower like the Soviet union can not allow Finland to threaten their very existence. I told him that Finland can't threaten your existence.
Hitler: He said, yes, but there is also a moral threat from neighboring countries, and what Finland threatens, is our moral existence. I told him, that Germany will not idly watch by, if another baltic sea war occurs. Then he asked me of our intentions with Romania, Germany had given their guarantees, were those claims aimed at the Soviet Union as well? I replied to him, i doubt that those guarantees are aimed at soviet union, since you have intention of launching an invasion at Romania? We haven't heard any such notion, that you had any intentions of invading Romania. You have always stated, that Besserabia belongs to you, but you have never declared any intentions to invade Romania.
At this point allegedly, a German security officer finds the hidden device and the recording ends. The meeting goes on for an unknown duration, however the recording of the meeting remains with the finish high command.
Good reference - it was no accidental recording - Hitler did not want a recording of his normal voice in English - the intonation in Mannerheim's reactions tell a brilliant story between the lines. He was the one who kept Finland free playing the lot of them. Tik misses the point with Mannerheim and relies too much on German reports who saw the Finns as traitors and burned everything on their way back to Norway..... Complicated stuff ...
It would make a good video to go into German Soviet relations post the Pact until Germany invades the USSR.
I was thinking that. In what way were the soviets not part of the axis under this criteria
Finland is not considered a Baltic nation, but a Nordic nation. Finland was a part of Sweden from 1150's to 1809, that's almost 700 years. However, Finland got to keep it's society as before during a part of Russia as autonomous province 1809 - 1917. 1/3 of Finnish genetics hail from Scandinavia, that's how much Scandinavia has influenced Finland.
That legacy that is continued in welfare society, government, legal system, culinary culture etc. not to forget that Sweden, aside Finnish, is an official language in Finland. Swedes are also the closest genetic relatives (along with Estonians) to Finnish.
>Finland didn't have an exist strategy.
>Finland was able to get out of the war quite nicely at the end.
I know what TIK meant, by exit strategy I believe he meant by WINNING the war or not being annexed in the end.
Finn's did have an exit plan but very risky, by exploiting Ryti on dismissing from the alliance with the Nazis without any political games and having the Nazis inside of their northern-land as a truce-card to be played. All in all, it worked but it was also; Plan to fail.
2:37 - Am I mistaken or did the Soviets actually not incorporate 12% of the population? I heard some historians say that pretty much no fins stayed in the annexed territories, but rather moved to Finland. Anyone know what is correct? It makes sense that pre-war, 12% of the population lived in the annexed territories, but I am farely sure that cities like Viipuri, were abondoned/evacuated by the finns living there, since they did not want to live in the Soviet Union. Actually when I think about it, I am pretty confident that on the youtube channel World War Two, covering the entire war, he actually states this in his videos about the winter war.
Pretty much, all 410,000 citizens got a new home already during the war. Among them was Martti Ahtisaari. Then there were also thousands of immigrants and deportees who survived the purges. They formed a battalion and clashed with the "whites" in 1941. Otto Wille Kuusinen has a statue near Cosmos Petrozavodsk Hotel.
2:40 soviet union couldn't have annexed 12% of Finland's population because the territories taken by the soviets were almost completely evacuated
This is one of your most interesting videos so far - even as a Brit, the subject matter is compelling.
Finland certainly wanted to cooperate with Germany because it barely survived the Winter War and desperately needed material and whatever assistance it could get from other countries. Finland would probably have preferred French or British help, but that was not an option any more, after Germany took control of Denmark and Norway. Finland had more troops available at the border in southern Finland after Germans took responsibility of the border line in the north.
Finnish nickel was probably important to Germany, but note that the nickel mine is in Petsamo (Nikel), right next to Norway that was already under German control. That question could have been handled separately.
It can be said that Finland wanted to join forces with Germans, but on the other hand it tried to avoid too tight relations. Finland didn't want to attack Leningrad, although that would probably have helped Germans a lot. Operation Barbarossa and German help (very important also in 1944) made it possible to survive also after the second conflict with Soviet Union.
One key reason for going east (third in addition to taking the occupied areas back, and some interest in some circles to create a bigger Finland) was that Finland needed a buffer zone because it was obvious that the big war had not ended yet, and Soviet Union would certainly take Finland if it only could. It seems that the buffer zone idea worked in the sense that the Soviet Union could not occupy Finland at the second try either. The border line stayed close to where it was after the Winter War.
The question if German troops were in Finland in 1940 was maybe secondary in the Finnish strategy, when compared to the more important question, if there would be guarantees that Germany would offer some military help to Finland.
The problem of the Murmansk Railway is difficult. Finland certainly would have benefited militarily if it was cut (no new material to the enemy troops), but diplomatic reasons worked in the other direction. I don't know why Germans didn't put more effort in cutting that railway.
But who started the Continuation War? Germany certainly wanted to do that. Finland certainly wanted to survive, ether by defending or by attacking. Soviet Union certainly wanted to take Finland at some point. It was maybe more of a question when the conflict would start, and which side would win. I think Finland's exit strategy was to survive until the war would end. The buffer zone approach supported this exit strategy. And if Germany would have been more successful, or Soviet Union weaker, Finland could have won its territory back. Some people would have been interested in the East Karelia too, if Soviet Union would have totally collapsed. Note that there were some activities in the East Karelia also after Finland reached its independence (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Karelian_uprising_and_Soviet%E2%80%93Finnish_conflict_of_1921%E2%80%9322). The Finnish leaders were probably more realistic with the East Karelia dreams than some of the activists.
Also not an option because France and Germany were calculating when it was in their interest to get here. Plus Sweden was blocking access.
Good and very relevant arguments. Thank you Juho.
Also Finns wanted to eat, without food deliveries from Germany, there would have been a famine in Finland.
It was justified aggression basically. Also you got to take into consideration that the Soviet Union had clear plans for another war against Finland, at the same time as they were planning on invading Europe.
In the beginning of the second world war finland declared her neutrality. Soviets own fault for attacking here. Kinda late for playing the victim
>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?
@@ВячеславСкопюк last time I checked there was 0 german troops in finland when the winter war started
@@xKuukkelix we are talking about Continuation war here, are we not?
@@xKuukkelix Ignore the xynta-troll.
If the Soviets did not start the winter war, would this all happen? Probably not.
The History Channel? What is History is not in that channel...
History Channel has become in PURE CRAP. Nothing more than cheap yankee propaganda...
@@VonRammsteyn What nationality are you bigot?
TIK certainly talked about History Channel's golden early years.
@@patrickharris8180 Sorry if i hurt your feelings. But it is what it is... It wasn't always been that way thought...
@@VonRammsteyn My feelings aren't hurt. I am just annoyed that you hate Americans.
Finland did nothing wrong
I'd say that loosing quite a lot of Finnish man for nothing was a wrong doing
@@ВячеславСкопюк Speak for yourself Russian 😉
@@michealohaodha9351 and somehow all those Finns who died without any meaning but greed of their government will be resurrected?
@@ВячеславСкопюк Again speak for yourself ;)
@@michealohaodha9351 so, no resurrection for Finns, send to their deaths by their corrupt power-hungry government?
I wish to see a video about Turkey-Germany relationships one day and why the Germans didn't attack Turks by which they could reach maybe easier to Caucasus and Iraq oil fields.
Did Finland wish for Leningrad? I've heard that Hitler was planning to hand the ruins of the city to the Finns?
Its part of greater finland (ingria) which the prime minister of finland wanted to take over.
Paskapuhetta kommunisti. No, you have just recycled old communist lies... "@@HistoryOfSocialism"
@@aanomad ReCyClEd OlD CoMmUnIsT lIeS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Finland
No, Finland never wanted to siege Leningrad, not even the "Greater Finland" wishing people want it.
@@HistoryOfSocialism In some of the wilder Greater Finland visions that originate as early as 1918, Ingria was indeed part of it. But in actuality in WW2 the Finnish government didn't include Leningrad in even it's most optimistic war aims in 1941.
If Germany wins, Finland gets to keep the lost territories AND East Karelia.
If Germany doesn't win, Finland can trade East Karelia for the lost territories.
If Germany loses... well they didn't think that one through.
Sweden sent a regiment of volunteers to fight in Finland in 1940 btw. though that was never official you don't just have an entire regiment of volunbeers show up with guns and uniforms and a command structure without shall we say some
ACTIVE MEASURES
Actually yes you would have. People had balls before jews pacified people after the wars.
@@findood8491 No, the generation of that time had the same type of people as nowadays, SJW's. Opportunist NPC's, just had played their own games differently.
Thoughts on the World War Two week by week channel?
"Let's discuss what some of the historians think about the "Continuation War", and see if there's not another view of why they went to war."
Why they went to war? I'd say the war came to them. And just because the Winter War "ended", didn't mean they weren't still in a state of war.
Two sayings apply perfectly here:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
and
"The best defense is a good offense."
There is 2 points of background from 20 years earlier to note too. Firstly, Germans had helped Finland before in the Civil War. Of course these were not the same Germans, but there is that history of military co-operation. Secondly, the dreams of Greater Finland. Finnish volunteers got involved in the Russian Civil War and tried to liberate other Finnic peoples. Even when negotiating for formal peace with the Soviets in 1920, the Finns tried to push for East Karelian autonomy. There was still aspirations of uniting Finnic people under an one country when Continuation War started, but I believe most people were quite realistic about that. The main reason for Finland to get involved was the Soviet hostility in the year between the wars making it clear that another war was inevitable.
Finnish strategy seemed to be to get to easily defensible positions between some big lakes and then just wait. The defensibility of those positions ended up not mattering that much as the Soviets just pushed hard through the Isthmus again when they attacked in 1944. I believe the Finnish fantasy of the ideal outcome for the war was to Germany and Soviet Union to somehow wrestle each other into submission and just leave Finland into its own devices, or maybe a repeat of WWI where Russia falls but Germany gets defeated by Western Allies afterwards.
Nowdays it’s not a secret that Finnish and German generals met pretty intensivelly especially in 1941 before Barbarossa. Germans didn’t reveal the exact attack date, but it was agreed that after the German offense begun Finland would wait for Soviet aggressioon for three days and attack after this even if there is nothing from the Soviets.
When it comes to the question of advancing deeper into Soviet territory, it was mainly a military manouver. Defending a couple of hundred kilometers front along three isthmuses is a lot easier than defending a 1500 kilometer front. This never happened because in fall 1941 the Finnish war command didn’t want to advance further due to high casualties. The desicion was made by the military command, not political which in my opinion shows that it wasn’t a political question. Of course there were a lot of nationalist voices calling for the unifying all ”Finnish tribes”, but as far as I know there was never a official nor a unified policy of any kind to do this. As a fun curiosity, when Finnish forces crossed the old border, there was a lot of casies of soldiers refusing to advance further due to not seing this as justfied.
But in general, yeah it was definitively an offensive war. The justifications can be debated (and I would strongly argue for them) but the agument of ”Finland just got into the war by accident” is just stupid. The whole thing in my opinion was an oppotunistic take on the situation. Germany, unlike USSR, was not a direct threat, and since they were going to attack the USSR it was thought better to stay on their good side (since their victory seemed more likely) and why not grab some land in the proces.
>and why not grab some land in the proces.
Yeah, and starve to death 600 - 800 thousands of civilians in Leningrad in the process of "taking back their land".
Not mentioning ethnic cleansing in Karelia, sending Soviet jews to Germany for extermination and making concentration camps for slavic children.
@@Seven_FM Well the Finns prefer not to know this hurtful truth. The myth of "taking back their own land only" is so convenient and convincing.
@Alex Alexin
I think it's the part of historical myth of every country, noone likes to talk about the dark pages of their history. But as far as I know Finnish historians know the truth and there are interesting books about Finnish-German cooperation.
> Ethnic cleansing might be an exaggeration
I'm afraid it's not exxageration, as population was divided by ethnical status and non-Finnish people were put into concentration camps, there's even article in wiki about that:
"Ultimately, the division was based on ethnic principles (sometimes expressing somewhat pseudo-scientific anthropological theories), and thus monolingual Russian-speaking Karelians and children from multinational families were usually classified as "national".[16][17] The long-term goal of this pursued policy was to expel the "non-national" part of the population to German-occupied Russia after the war had reached a victorious conclusion."
"At the beginning of the Finnish occupation of Karelia, over 20,000 of the local ethnic Russians (almost half of them) were placed in internment and labor camps. In the end of 1941 the number rose up to 24,000."
"Living in Finnish camps was harsh as 4,000-7,000 of civil prisoners died, mostly from hunger during the spring and summer of 1942 due to failed harvest of 1941.[28][29] Also segregation in education and medical care between Karelians and Russians created resentment among the Russian population."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_military_administration_in_Eastern_Karelia#Ethnic_policies
I certainly hope you would do one piece about Finland. As for the Greater Finland idea: it had been floating around since 1918 among some more nationalist circles, academic nationalists and national romantics who saw the East Karelia as the "home land of Kalevala". Some white Finns had actually invaded East Karelia in the 1920's about the same time as the British invaded the far north in their futile effort to curb the reds in Russia. So there was certain amount of support for this idea but for the majority that was not what the Continuation war was all about. For the most of the Finns it was a revenge from the Winter war. As the troops crossed the Old Border there were literally thousands of men who refused to advance any further. These incidents happened across the whole front. Eventually no one got shot and those who had refused agreed to continue towards the east. As for the siege of Leningrad: one thing people in Finland and specially outside of it forget. Leningard was the home for marshal Mannerheim. He had lived most of his life in St.Petersburg and was a tsarist trough and trough. He had no animosity towards Russians as a people but he hated the Bolsheviks ie. Soviet Union. It is very likely he hoped the Germans would knock the whole soviet system down and he could return to his home town one day so that was one his motives not participate to the siege. As for the soviets, they hated Mannerheim BUT saw him as Russian white general so much so that immediately after the war they wanted him to take over the presidency of Finland. In 1990's Mannerheim was actually rehabilitated in Russia as an Russian general. One thing which is also lost in the smog of WW2: the February general attack in the Karelian isthmus in 1940 was the biggest attack in the whole war by that time. Also the soviet summer offensive in 1944 was one of the biggest attacks in WW2. Not many people know this and it would be very interesting to see and hear what you could come up with. One very strange detail: yes, Finland fought along side of Germany BUT the Finnish army had Jewish Finns in the ranks. They even had their own synagogue in the front right next to the German troops. Three Finnish Jews were awarded with the Iron cross for their bravery during the war. They did not take them, though.
Finland blocked Leningrad from the north, and Germany from the south. Thus they made famine in the city possible. This whole story about Mannerheim’s feelings towards Leningrad is a fake - commanders are never guided by emotions.
@@СергейРублев-т7я It was his home town after all so yes, it really was the place where he had spent most of his adult life and then some. And also, Finland did not block Leningrad from the north. We stood at the Karelian isthmus blocking the north west. Had we blocked the north there would not had been the famous ice road that kept Leningrad barely alive. Plus we would have also bombarded the city from out direction if we had any intention to destroy it. But we never did. It was not part of the Finnish plans anyway. The siege of Leningrad was one of the biggest war crimes in WW2. Now, one would think that if Stalin and the leaders of USSR had seen Mannerheim as a participant in that they would have demanded his head. But instead, they demanded that he was to be the next president of Finland since in their eyes he was an old white Russian general to whom they could relate and with whom they make a deal.
You say false information that was created after the war (memoirs). In reality, commanders are NEVER guided by emotions. And the Finnish army blocked Leningrad from the north by cutting off the ground path to the city.
@@СергейРублев-т7я Well, not according to the maps of the Red army by that time. But I guess there will be different views on this issue. Let us wait what TIK has to say if and when he does his research on the subject. The fact remains that if Finland would have wanted to stop the ice road on Lake Ladoga it could have done it easy by artillery alone and thus cut the whole city off but Finns never did and the Germans could not simply because they had spent their force by then. Yes, Finland occupied the Karelian Isthmus west and north west of Leningard, the ground which for the most part had never been Soviet ground until Stalin took it in 1940 by warfare. So yes, we were part of the blockade in that direction. But there were never any plans in the Finnish military to attack to the city or destroy it. That is a load of BS. Had the Germans done it Finns would have just looked on but not participated in that.
sami parkonnen
I believe the Finnish Reds were originally even more nationalist and irredentist than The Whites.
But after they were defeated their leaders were mostly in exile in The USSR so they had to change their tune.
They didn't "just happen" to attack at the same time. It was of course coordinated. But what choice did Finland have? Attack or be invaded. Period. They were co-belligerents. Not Axis. Maybe a difference without a distinction. But true nonetheless. The fact that the Finns refused to participate in the siege of Leningrad is illustrative.
My main problem with Finland's actions in the Continuation War is a LACK of action. They had a couple of years to truly fortify their positions in Karelia. What did they do? Nothing. They literally had arts and crafts programs going on for the soldiers in the defensive lines. LITERALLY! When the Leningrad siege was broken, the Finns were left in a damnably weak position. Mannerheim has to take responsibility for this as much as anyone. But again, as for the cooperation with Germany, there was no choice. Ultimately that choice turned out to be correct, as evidenced by the fact that Finland emerged from the war as a still-independant nation, and wasn't incorporated into the Soviet Bloc or the Warsaw Pact.
I very much enjoyed your video on this. Thanks.
>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?
Вячеслав Скопюк - Finland was given up into the “Soviet sphere of influence”. Neutrality would have been same as “wait for your turn to be annexed”. Tell Poland, and Baltic states about how neutrality worked out for them.
@@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.
@@ВячеславСкопюк The Baltic states wanted to stay neutral, but to Stalin and his 1,5-year friendo Hitler their sovereignty was a joke, to be handled like chips in a poker game, so off the map they went, crushed between giants. Enjoy your fantasy of thinking the USSR were the good guys gayboi, and enroll into a university. St.Petersburg State looks great.
@@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
There is no way soviets lost only 200k soldiers. Wasn't it like 450k +wounded and lost doldiers?
Is it possible that the only way Finland was going to remain independent was to fight alongside the Germans? Yugoslavia was not able to. It had been German support that kept Finland independent after the fall of the Czar.
It's like saying the U.S. were allied with Napoleonic France during the War of 1812. None of Britain's allies in that conflict declared war on the U.S. just as none of the USSR's allies did on Finland.
Even the Soviets didn't consider Finland on par with the other countries fighting alongside the Germans as the treatment at the end of hostilities is not like Romania, Hungary, etc..
I'm pretty sure Stalin demanded western allies to declare war on Finland in 1942. Which they did with great reluctance.
@@ВалБал-н3й I was unaware of this and apparently the U.K. did so in December 1941 after Finland went beyond its 1939 borders. Thanks.
I think it's reasonable to say the Germans and Finns were Allies because there were German units stationed in Finland cooperating with Finnish units. The German-Finnish cooperation was far more substantial than the German-Bulgarian cooperation, despite Bulgaria being an official member of the Axis unlike Finland.
Opposite to what you say, the Soviet Union annexed zero % of the Finnish population after the winter war. No Finns remained in the annexed area, they all moved to other parts of Finland.
Muutama hullu jäi ja ne joutu työleirille.
You are saying that Finland was part of axis. In somewhat that might be true. But what about soviets? They were allied wich germans at the start of ww2 and they both attacked Poland. Will that make soviets axis also?
>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?
@@ВячеславСкопюк TIK said that they were allies. In his recent video he clearly implies to that. I know you're a troll but it starts becoming meaningless when the channel you're trolling at, is actually against your words.
@@mabussubam512 go play, kiddo
@@ВячеславСкопюк Ehh, not an argument. Will you concede?
@@mabussubam512 that is only comment you deserve. Go play
I just saw this video after I asked you to make a video about the Scandinavian countries. Eeep. thanks
Finland was initially attacked by the soviets in1939
In the continuation war they never advanced beyond the border line of 1939.
Thus leningrad was never completely surrounded by enemy forces during its siege 1941-1944.
This gave the soviets the opportunity to have an open corridor over the frozen lake latonga to transfer provisions to the besieged city. This is why leningrad never surrendered to the germans.
Even stalin recognised this and after the war did not insist in treating finland as an axis power. He just insisted that finland should remain neutral in the post war era.
Mannerheim was not just a great general. He was a political genius.
Way to go finland!
>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
@@ВячеславСкопюк an operation to cut off supply lines doesn't count. Plus, if they wanted to extend their borders why didnt they just help germany take Leningrad?
@@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?
A most interesting episode from the icy Northern Front. The Germans supplied the Fins with a huge amount of armaments between 1941- 44 . Especially Anti Tank Weapons , Stug III's and Bf 109's fighters until the Fins jumped ship , which in turn lead to the German Armed forces touching half of Finland in the fall of 44.
What German troops were in Finland in fall 1940??? None, or maybe couple of officers for negotiations...
enough for Molotov to raise that question in Berlin
do you know that the germans promised Leningrad to finns? and the city was meant to be completely demolished. the documents really show all the horrors they planned to do with the territory and civillians. I know how to get the documents in russian if you like, probably they exist in english somewhere aswell
Can you make a video on the panzerturm or tank turrets that were used by the Germans as static defences in the Atlantic wall and the eastern front thanks it seems to be one of those topics where not much is available online so any info is appreciated
Considering the usual scope of TIK's videos I don't think he'll pick this one up, but there is another youtuber who might, his channel is called Military History Visualized
Sorry for promoting other youtubers here, but considering that TIK and MHV have made at least one video together I hope it's okay
Christian Vest I know MHV he’s actually who I found TIK through
Might also be more Mark Felton productions area id suggest
Fantastic vid my friend
where's the lapland war? I know it's a seperate conflict but if you're going to talk about their relationship during the war it seems strange to leave out. If it was deemed out of the focus of the video being on that particular question then fine but i would've thought it would be mentioned.
What about it? Soviets demanded Germans be driven out of Finland by force instead of peaceful banishment.
@@Aivottaja and the germans massacred the population and finnish troops. So much for "axis power"
@@adrianshephard378
Massacre my ass. They were retreating. And this was after Germany had already lost the war.
@@Aivottaja refusing to leave and taking northern territory is not retreat, they literally enacted scorched earth
@@adrianshephard378
They scorched the earth while retreating, not massacre.
In your view what was the main flaws with Operation Barbarossa and what could have been done differently with it to maybe make it more successful?
He has videos on this.
Being on the same side as the axis is different from being in the axis. For all points, Winter War and subsequently the Continuation War were separate wars from the German wars.
Second of all, the Continuation War did not come as a surprise to ANYONE, let alone the Finns. They knew it would happen sooner, or later.
Countries in the axis were those that signed the tri-partite pact, Finland did not, thus she is not IN the axis. Simple as that.
So here's the deal. You know you're going to get into a fight with a big dude you can't defeat. But you know another big dude will be fighting as well.
Are you going to sit by and wait to get completely pummeled, or are you going to co-operate with the other dude?
Preparing for a war that you know is unavoidable is not a sign of aggression. It's a sign of sanity. Had Finland not prepared, she would have fallen under the Soveit block sooner rather than later. Thus using this preparation as a declaration of war is quite asenine in my opinion.
"Finland signed a peace treaty with the Allied powers in 1947 which described Finland as having been "an ally of Hitlerite Germany" during the continuation war.[114] As such, Finland was the only democracy to join the Axis.[115][116] Finland's relative independence from Germany put it in the most advantageous position of all the minor Axis powers."[117] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Finland
@@matthelme4967 ...And? I assume you have a point you're trying to make.
@@Caldera01 Yes.
@@matthelme4967 Cool beans.
Hey tik, the molotov-ribbentrop pact always had a confusing element for me: the soviets gained much more land (and probably population?) than the germans did. Did this cause any tensions between the two powers and did they have plans for poland, for example population transfer (like the one that happened after ww2 where poles living in belorussia were resettled). And will you cover the expulsion of germans from eastern europe in the future? Nice video as always, keep up the great work! But remember, if Finland had lost the winter war, the soviets would have swallowed the entire country. You cant just ignore this fact. Of course a war of aggression is not justified, but the war of aggression the soviets started against the fins must be remembered as well
Finland did lose the winter war tho
You mentioned at 3:57 that Sweden did not really want to get into an alliance with Sweden. The Swedish government was actually split on this topic, after the Finnish ambassador to Sweden on the 20th of September 1940 raised the question of closer co-operation with Sweden, in one of three forms. He suggested a customs union, a defense union, or a complete "Anschluss". Yes, he did use that word.
Prime minister Per Albin Hansson was hesitant, favouring a post-war solution that would also bring Denmark and Norway closer, while foreign minister Christian Günther saw the Finnish proposition to stop a second attack by the Soviet Union. The discussions continued for three months, even with demands from the Swedish government that Finland would abandon all plans to regain the lost territories.
Even after Germany signed the transit agreement with Finland the discussions continued, and on the 4th of November the Swedish government agreed to keep up the discussions. On the 5th of November, the Soviet ambassador Kollontai warned against all continued discussions and on the 6th of December the Finnish ambassador in Moscow was informed that all further discussions about a potential Swedish-Finnish union was against the peace treaty from March, which finally ended the discussions.
200,000 lives to take such little amount of land is beyond me. How could of that been worth all that death and destruction
Where did you get that 200k dead number? WIkipedia sources several sources and they all say 126,875-167,976 dead or missing.
Nikita Hrustshev talked about million, and he was an officer in WW2. So maybe the truth is somewhere between? Of course we citizens in The West have always taken your respective numbers (considering ANYTHING) at face value. You being so reliable and honest people, with impeccable knowledge of foreign customs and languages (= English).
They lie
Hey TIK, i just had a quick question for you. I'm writing a term paper for my history class on German night fighters of WWII. I was wondering if you have any books you can recommend for some sources on this topic. Thank you very much!
Try Nachtjagd by Theo Boiten and The Other Battle by Peter Hinchliffe. Biographies include Princes of Darkness by Claire Rose Knott regarding the two night fighter aces Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein and Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weissenfeld, The Lent Papers by Peter Hinchliffe on the second highest night fighter ace Helmut Lent, and Ace of Diamonds, also by Hinchliffe on the highest night fighter ace, Heinz Schnauffer.
@@steveellis6300 I'll check them out thank you very much!
@@steveellis6300 Jeez some of those books are expensive to order
Sorry mate, you have it wrong in many ways. And there are severel false claims you make. First the obvious mistake you make when you claim that Finland lost 12 % of its population due to the Winter war is pure nonsense. All finns (99,9%) living in the lost terrotories (to the Soviet Union) were avacuated to Finland before Soviet occupation. No one was willing to stay under Soviet rule. Then you make severel generalisations of the situation based only on Mr. Lunde's claims, and that is misleading. You should have read several more book of the complex situation on Finland in 1940-45. It was true that Finland wanted desperately to avoid a new war and possible occupation of the Soviet Union in 1940 after the Winter war. To soviets finalised their annecsation of the Baltic states summer 1940 and everyone thought that the next one will be Finland. And all possibilies were looked at to avoid this. The only asset Finland had in regard to Germany was the nickel of Petsamo just close to the Soviet Union in the northeasternnmost part of Finland. Germany needed a transit agreement with Finland as it was crusial that Germany was able to safely refill and supply the troops it had close to Soviet Union and Petsamo nickel mines. In northern Norwey there were no aducate roads from Narvik to the northeastern part of Norwey. So a transit agreement with Sweden would not do much for that problem. Finnish Lappland was needed by the germans for transit. Then you do not put eneough attention to Finnish command as they REFUSED to accack Leningrad defences from the north (and over the old border) even though German command asked it 1941 and again 1942. This was also the reason the USA never declared war against Finland during the WW2. Finland also refused to cut the Murmarsk railway line (to Argangel) even thought it was possible if Finland only had tried it with full force 1942. It never happened. Then You forget that Finland had a severe food shortage during winter 1941-42 and it was only Germany taht could help Finland. So in many ways Finland had really poor choises during those years. However you mention, that there was never any formal traeties with Finland and the axis nations. So Finland was operating under its own command, not by a joint command or under German command like Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia and Croatia. Aslo you should have to look the outcome of the war for Finland. The USA was willing to support Finnish efforts to brake the ties with Germany in 1944. They were not willing to do it for any ather country fighting along Germany. So at least the USA felt that Finland was truly a separate case and major contrast to the other small axis countries.
Finland was no separate case and nothing different from other countries of the region, it is the position of USSR that makes difference. USSR had to face pending aggression on all fronts, as industrially-developed capitalist countries were seeking to expand their influence and crush any resistance in their way - and the situation never changed before or after the war. If USSR would have wanted to completely surround and conquer Finland, they would have done so, however, it would have taken too little effect for so much effort to police such a large state. While considering the possibilities, USSR only claimed what was necessary to protect the second-largest city in the entire country, but of course nobody in the West likes to mention it. They prefer to brag how a small country gloriously killed waves of millions of dirty Bolshevik peasants that wanted to destroy freedom.
US, UK and Germany have been trying to subvert Finland to fight against USSR since the very beginning of the existence of this country, and Finnish nationalism only wanted expansion and annexation. This is why they are always talking about that one war between USSR and Finland and prefer not to remember about other three. They prefer not to mention how many other nations fought among Nazis ranks so not to embarrass those nations when they will need their help in defeating Communism. And never ever try to talk about people who supported USSR and fought with them against imperialism and occupation (Lapland war, for example) - they do not exist in western version of history.
@@StelzCat "they do not exist in western version of history." They do exist:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War#English
"and Finnish nationalism only wanted expansion and annexation" Lol. Thats what they told you in school? Look at the Soviet Union 1923-1991 coat to arms. Its a symbol that represents a nations goals. Its a hammer and sickle over the WHOLE GLOBE.
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_Soviet_Union
And the Lapland war was triggered by Soviet pressure on Finns. So it wasnt a war "against imperialism and occupation". It was a war to throw all foreign authoritarian socialists out of Finland. Soviets wouldnt leave if there were Germans in Finland so Germans were kicked out by force. But German troops didnt bother the Finns, and German food saved Finland from starvation in 1941.
@@Paciat yeah well, as I was saying, US and Germans really don't like to remember any of that. And they also probably told you that the sickle means slaying innocent people and hammer means beating the hell out of them.
Finland and USSR fought Germany together when they understood that there's no reason to allow ruthless dictatorship of capital to rule them in their worst form, and ever since then Finland was able to keep relatively good relationships with its neighbours. But apparently, not enough Finns died for US and German interests, so they put a lot of their effort in glorifying war, racism and collaboration in these countries.
@@StelzCat "And they also probably told you that the sickle means slaying innocent people and hammer means beating the hell out of them." Thats what they told you, lol, that my teachers told that to me.
What does the whole world under a Soviet symbol means? Wheres England, France and Germany? Polish "Miracle on the Vistula" battle proved that countries will defend their independence. (as Stalin predicted and Trocky didnt) Thats why he abandoned the idea constant global revolution and decided to build a communist state. The "Stalin line" fortifications were build to give Soviets time to build a war Industry needed to wage an offensive war. Deep battle war doctrine, amphibious tanks, paratroopers, bunker buster tanks, flamethrower tanks, 203mm siege guns. You dont need those things when defending.
And if Soviets were so scared of nationalists why did they propose the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact ? Didnt Hitler say he wanted Ukraine? Why would you want a common border? And then Soviets traded with NAZIs oil, rare metals (Cr, V) and food. The 1940 air battle of Britain and the sea battle of the Atlantic would not happen without Soviet fuel. But you believe that the Finns were a threat?
If Finland wasnt attacked in 1939, Leningrad would not be encircled, Finland might even organised minor civilian evacuation of Leningrad or some food supply. Finnish nationalism nad NAZI cooperation was mainly caused by the 1939 war.
@@Paciat You were largely misinformed. USSR only abandoned the idea of global revolution when it collapsed. And you do not build defensive lines when you want offensive action. That's what Germans did - they've had no defences and when their desperate offence failed, they lost the war. Also if you want to learn history, you better remember Munch agreement, as well as look out for people who supported and armed German industry pre-war (ultra super-late spoiler: everybody did).
If Finland wasn't attacked in 1939, Germans would concentrate their effort on the other side of the front and breached the defence in first hours of war. Which would lead to complete annihilation of the entire population, not just 1/3 of it. And that's why Finnish pre-war collaboration and adoration of Allied powers resulted in war - there was no need to deepen conflict between two countries other than for the sole purpose of kicking USSR out of League of Nations. (another late spoiler: with only England left in League as major power, there was no chance to do any meaningful resistance against Hitler).
Finland was very pro-German since long before the Winter War, so it's not surprising that they'd collaborate under the table. As for Karelia, it's cultural connections, the port city of Murmansk, and the chance to avenege the loss of western Karelia would have been powerful motivators. Not all decision-making is perfectly logical.
Check out this link on urban combat: smallwarsjournal.com/urban_operations/main Most of them deal with modern warfare, but there are several articles on combat in WWII (see 'Breaking the Mold: tanks in the cities')
I see no reason to dwell on poor little Finland's part anymore as co-belligerent with Nazi-Germany against equally evil but much more potential threat to our nation i.e. Stalin's Soviet Union. But here we go if you really really want:
1) Winter War 1939-40 was by all accounts Soviet aggression, which destroyed all hopes of "neighborly relations". Even our hardcore socialists joined to the mutual campaign against eastern invaders.
2) Even the hardest core socialist knew what the unification with USSR would mean.
3) The lost territory in Winter War had to be retaken, by any means necessary.
4) Everyone, even the common Finnish soldier, knew something about Nazi atrocities. In the meantime our JEWISH soldiers were gaining Iron Crosses(!) on the front. And without any opposition could held their own synagogues in the occupied lands of Eastern Karelia.
5) Already in the winter of 1941-42 it was clear to practically everyone in our command, especially to Marshall Mannerheim, that Germany would never win.
6) Hitler's visit in Finland at June 1942 (amazing incident since by this time he almost never travelled abroad anymore) to celebrate Mannerheim's 75th birthday is pretty well documented. So much that our radio broadcasters even defied the absolute directive that Hitler was never to be recorded during formal discussions. So much that even unprecedented behavior like Mannerheim's lighting a cigar or Führer's couple of drinks made only latter's officers gasp with amazement. Also from films and photographs of the meeting you can see the Mannerheim's overall annoyance of the whole situation very clearly but also Hitler's very timid demeanor with our great statesman while usually behaving so arrogantly against foreign leaders.
7) President Ryti (by pressure from Mannerheim) sacrificed himself in summer of 1944 making the last ever contract with Germany in order to get the desperately needed weapons (especially antitank-guns) with the promise Finland will never make separate peace terms with the Soviets while he's in charge. In brilliantly planned scheme, 50 000 Finnish defenders in Karelian Isthmus first stopped the 150 000 strong Red Army with disastrous losses (the greatest battle in Nordic history), after which Ryti resigned and a new president Mannerheim had free hands to start negotiations with Stalin/Molotov.
8) The hostilities between Finland and Soviet Union were ceased in the end of August 1944. Finland had to cede 10% of its territory and reoccupy 400 000 Karelian immigrants who, "surprisingly", all decided to move rather than stay in USSR. We also had that last drastic affair to drive out some 200 000 strong German troops still remaining in Northern Finland, who in retaliation burned the whole city of Rovaniemi. Still out of Red Scare our government refused any US aid and paid the huge compensations Russian demanded full between 1945-52. Poor scapegoat Ryti was convicted to serve 10 years hard labour, but due to illness was released in a few years and died soon after.
10) Still no Finnish leader was executed, Helsinki remained the only capital of war-faring countries in the whole Europe never getting invaded (along with London and Moscow) and despite massive bombing campaigns remained almost unscathed thanks to brilliant AA-system and clever distraction tactics (lights were set in the uninhabited parts outside of the city). Soviet Union by its own actions certified that the 1200 km border between the two nations remained even bigger cultural barrier than Rio Grande. So all kudos to Israel, but I think it's us Finns that are in many ways the "chosen people".
Your chosen people sent Russian children and women into concetration camps, where they died from hunger and took part in the genoside siege of Leningrad. Some very chosen Finns with the agreement of the Finnish democracy served in the war- criminal SS units. The 1918 Vyborg Massacre is an example of what kind of relations the new- independant Finns wanted to settle with the Russians. The Finns first started invading Russia during 1918-1922, where the Finnish- led bands committed some more massacres till they were driven away by the Soviets. The Winter War was a kind of a continuation war after those aggressive actions of the Finns.
@@slavashishkin3313 Come on, this is so weak response and you guys affected the US presidential election... :D Anyway: 1) EVEN if there was any atrocities against civilians by the Finnish troops (none documented) I'm sure your Stalinist regime compensated those million times over - not to mention what your partisans did to some of our near-border villagers; 2) the very unwillingness to participate in German North Army's Leningrad campaign to ensure full encirclement was one of the reasons getting off comparatively lightly in afterwar repercussions; 3) some Finns did fight as part of SS-Viking division in the southern part of Eastern Front and secretly we are all very proud of it; 4) 1918-22 massacres? Reds if victorious would had killed a 100 times more, but anyway why the fuck you want to cry about anything that happened AGAINST the bolsheviks?
@@tylsimys67 I' m talking about civilians , not the members of any party. For the Finns it is OK to kill civilians, if they are not finns. Everybody has their own sins. The fact that Stalin was a dictator is a lame excuse for the Finns to commit war- crimes. I take my information from anti- Russian biased English Wiki about Finnish atrocities. I saw a monument dedicated to the victims of the Vyborg massacre, which was documented all right , and on which lie photos of Russian families murdered by the Finnish rasists. The Finnish concertration camps are proved. One can only argue here about the numbers of victims. The Finns wanted Greater Finland and got Lesser Finland. The Finnish unwilliness has got another name: faint- heartedness by other nations. As soon as they get on the neck or suffer considerable losses, they surrender or stop assaulting as they have no fighting any more in their hearts. To meddle in elections is a well- known hobby of the Americans, not the Russians.
@@slavashishkin3313 finds only served in Special forces, plus are you forgetting the soviet unions war crimes?
@@slavashishkin3313 most of those war crimes reports are literally Soviet propoganda from the cold war
It's a shame the Three Isthmus Greater Finland was not established.
THANK YOU! :)
Best regards from Finland, once again!! Keep up this great work & content.
Let me preface this by saying that I am Finn who likes history and has read history books about this stuff many times.
Here are the issues I have with this video
1. I have not heard any historian or a Finn call Continuation War defensive war.
Some have said that it was war to take more land in order to negotiate with USSR so Finland could have its previous land back(ones lost in Winter War). Giving back Karelia in exchange for lost land was likely the aim IF Germany failed.
2. 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. That is the main reason why I think that Finns were on same side but not actual allies.
3. Finland did have exit strategy. There were actually 2 of them.
One was when Germany won. Then Finland would take conquered areas and keep them while Germany took rest.
Finland would stay as Germanys little friend until the end just to escape being annexed later.
Second one was in case USSR turned things around(like they did).
That plan was to make enough progress to force USSR in the negotiation table by giving them their land back in exchange of independence and some of the land lost in Winter War.
Also not angering USSR too much by participating in Germans action like Leningrad or execution stuff that SS-did.
Sadly USSR proved to be too strong for Finland to use Karelia etc. as bargaining chips but still this plan did manage to keep Finland independent.
4. Suur-Suomi thinking was in line with the thinking of the time.
Almost every nation had some sort of `these land should be part of my X-country` groups.
USSR and Germany had them also. Also the Suur-Suomi was influenced by the `one people one nation` thinking of the time and also had influences of the colonization era ideology.
> 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.
@@ВячеславСкопюк
>you find plenty of Finns(judging by their names) calling Continuation War a 'defensive war' here, in the comments
Ya. This is first time I see that kind of idiots.
Only ways you can stretch logic to make Continuation War a defensive one are these.
1. You just ignore that there was truce between and think it as continuation of same war.
2. You use logic of preventative war/invasion.
>or example, Japan, which was the undisputed ally of Germany, didn't fight the USSR at all.
Flaved logic Japan didnt see any military value freezing their troops in Siberia for no good reason.
I think Japan should have took control of Coastal land of USSR on Bering-Korea part.
But USSR wasnt attacking them so there wasnt really any need to attack USSR.
I agree that Finnish military was seriously limited but if it really wanted to help Germans(like Italy and Romania did) it could have put more troops on the 2 targets that Germans wanted Finns to do.
Even sending handful of troops to Leningrad-battle would have been enough for me to declare that Finns really allied Germany but even that didnt happen(at least I dont know that it did)
@@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
Awesome! Really awesome, mate. I was ignorant to reasons and motivations of the continuation war. I knew that the finnish didn´t really liked the germans, but fear more the soviet expansionism. But i did´t knew nothing beyond that...AH! And that they might been the best alpine troopes of the war...I really enjoy your work. We all do...
Overall you had a lot of things right in the video. But I suppose English litterature of the subject is lacking, and also newspapers and magazines have written a lot of research into this subject to this day, which you can't read.
German diplomat Karl Schnurre informed president of Finland May -41 about Molotov's desire to renew attack against Finland (German records of this German-Soviet negotiation exist). The desires of Moscow did not come as a suprise, as Soviet Union after Winter War had kept high tensions between the countries, with shooting down a Finnish passenger plane, making attack mobilizations behind the border including fake radio broadcasts and demonizing Finnish government. It was a common feeling among the Finns that Soviet Union wanted to try military solution again. Diaries of Finnish leaders state many time belief that Soviet Union is about to attack. Between the two wars Finland put a lot of effort to buy and manufacture military equipment.
Yes the Germans told 25.05.1941 Finnish officers who were visiting Germany, about German plans to attack Soviet Union. Before that the talks between Finland and Germany had always based on the hypothetical case of Soviet attack against Finland, and it was what for these officers went to Germany this time too, to hear what Germany intended to do in such case.
The information of German attack plans resulted secretly small military units to prepare for the war, most remarkably mining waters in the Gulf of Finland, and the mobilization shortly before German attack. The parliament of Finland was never informed and was ignorant of the secret preparations, as were many of the government ministers. These German-Finnish talks and military preparations were very hush-hush, only small clique of government and officers knew about those.
Several diaries and messages June -41 just before the start of Barbarossa attack, both by Germans and Finns make a point that Finns never promised to join an attack against Soviet Union. General Erfurth, German liaison officer in Finland: "Finns were stubborn and unwavering, stating they wouldn't start an attacking war, but in case of attacked, they have unanimously decided to defend themselves." German ambassador Von Blücher to German foreign minister about Finnish soldiers: "not one of them was willing for attacking war, but everyone had decided to defend against attack." Finnish War Marshal Mannerheim: "I announced colonel Buschenhagen, that we can't give any guarantee Finland joining the war. Finland has decided to remain neutral unless it gets attacked."
Your "Finland was part of Axis" opinion doesn't hold water though. First: only who signed the Tripartite Pact are Axis powers, there are several co-belligernt nations, not only Finland. Second, Germans countinuously tried to get Finland to change their strategy and follow German aims. The Finnish War Marshal made it clear to the Germans many times, that we fight the same enemy, but Finland has an independent strategy. Third, Finland also didn't declare war to any western allied nations, although apparently from Soviet demand Britain declared a war to Finland.
One of the requests Germans made many times, was cutting off the Murmansk railroad. The western part of the railroad fell already October -41within Finns' occupied land, but there was another fork, more to the east that still operated. Originally the Finnish War Marshal apparently supported the idea to cut the railroad (and in deed a Finnish 1200 man strong group did attack this eastern part of the railway February 1942, destroying a railroad station and cutting the track for a moment). But it was however a political decision not to cut it off, as Finnish leadership were unwilling to provoke the western allied countries, who had previously symphatized Finland during Winter War.
And another request denied was to participate the attack against Sgt Petersburg (Leningrad) and close its supply route "Road of life".
Finnish speakers (and those willing to read bad machine translation) might find these links interesting:
jput.fi/erillissota.htm
jput.fi/Saksalaiskeskustelut.htm
jput.fi/Suomi_pelasti_Venajan.htm
(Edit: fixed one link, accidentally posted a link twice)
21.06.1941 Finland laid mines on her own national waters in Gulf of Finland.
The night of 22.06.1941 Barbarossa Plan went hot: Germans attacked Soviet targets in Poland. Early morning of the same day, Soviet Union bombed several Finnish military targets both by land and sea. Later same day German bombers used a Finnish airfield in their return flight from an attack against Soviet Union. Finland declared neutrality in the German-Soviet hostilities. The SU kept bombing Finnish military targets both land and sea for four days. After aerial bombings of several Finnish cities Helsinki, Turku, Kotka, Tampere, Porvoo, Lahti, Heinola and Varkaus 26.06.1941 Finland declared war.
The question is, what if the Finns had pressed on in Leningrad
nothing. They had no means to do anything serious
@@ВячеславСкопюк Ehh, on 30th August 1941 Finnish army surrounded and destroyed 3 Soviet division 43rd 115th and 123rd in Porlammi area. So the Soviet 23 Army had nothing to throw in the KaRU defensive line north of Leningrad.
If Finland wanted Leningrad the could have taken it then.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Porlampi
@@ВячеславСкопюк I agree. Finnish army was small, able to operate on their own terms against a shocked and disorganized enemy in - 41, and put up a hell of a fight on their own soil in - 44, but it was no Wehrmacht. Half a million men in total. What could be won by sending a division or two against a gigantic city with more people than the entire Finland?
I've been told that there were no significant high value troops stopping us north of L-grad, but what then? Our own Stalingrad?
Our war was a game of poker. You play with what you're dealt. Bluffing may cost you everything. Glad we folded in 1944 with our own shirt still on. All in all, Finland lost little, and certainly won in peace. Doing helluva lot better than Russians since - 45. We may have been Moscow's bitch but at least we had bananas. (Ask an older Russian what that means).
@@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.
@@ВячеславСкопюк your only right in one point, there wouldn't been a good situation for Finland capturing a city of the same population size as Finland. And no, you should not believe your own propaganda so much. Finland had only sufferd minor casualties. Soviet had no troops to send in beginning of Septemper 1941as German was approaching from the south. This even Russian historians of to day admits, so way you can't grasp this is above me.
My grandfather told me one episode from this battle. 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.
You probably won't read this in your book either.
There is almost NO content on the continuation war on UA-cam. A damn, damn shame
Like Romania joining the Axis to take back ''only'' the lost territory of Bassarabia and northern Bucovina, and they ended up in Stalingrad xD
Atleast the finns stayed in finland
I have no idea how Romania did as a country before 1941-44. But after that until 1989... hip hip...!
@@sagnik2693
Atleast in ”Greater Finland”.
When you discuss who know what in the finish goverment I can help you a bit. I am comming from Denmark and on several ocations the prime- and defense minister had taken decisions without telling nobody. On instance just before WWI started the danish minister of defense had visited a german warship visiting Copenhagen and bring with him all defense plans for Denmark. Those plans was approved by Germany so they didn't need to attack Denmark to secure their flank to the north. Next instance during the cold war there were a goverment decision about not accepting atomic bombs on danish soil. However the prime minister still allowed USA to have atomic bombs in their base in Thule. So when US lost an atomic boom there everything had to be keep secret so the danish goverment and population would learn about it. The defense minister also accepted the danish army to have kanons there could fire small atomic grenates and some officers know about how to get access to those grenates just on the other side of the border in Germany.
The Soviet Union initially invaded Finland on the pretext of taking land in Karelia to protect Leningrad. Had the Winter War gone as planned for the Soviets, there is nothing to suggest that they wouldn't have annexed the country fully. The land the Soviets took in the north had nothing to do with Leningrad and was simply a land grab. It then became a self fulfilling prophecy where the Finns who hadn't been absorbed wanted revenge on the Soviets.
The Soviets were agressors in WW2. Just like Japan Italy and Germany. They invaded Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and various places along their southern Siberian border. They just happened to end up as a "good guy" fighting with the allies to defeat the Germans. They never had to return any of their territorial aquisitions.
To say Finland was the agressor in the continuation war ignores the previous actions by the Soviets. The alliance with Germany was one of necessity to secure their independence. The allies certainly felt this way as they allowed Finland to join in 1944 when they werent necessary for defeating the axis unlike many of the other states that allied with Germany who they allowed to be swallowed up by the Soviets in 44-45
And unlike Romania Hungary Bulgaria and Slovakia that also took the side of the Germans, Finland didn't fall under the Soviet sphere after the war because the allies deemed her actions from 1941-1944 as justified.
What are the places near the South-Siberian border?
In Poland, the tips did not invade. This is the reunion of Belarus and Ukraine. As a resident of Western Belarus, I say this (then they called it Eastern Poland). Soviet troops were hailed as liberators. And this is true, because Poles were engaged in forced polonization, closed schools in the national language, only Polish, parties and public movements from these lands never went to parliament, and vivid public figures went to prison. While in Soviet Ukraine and Belarus, more and more schools opened, and local residents were specially invited to the party apparatus of these states (“Korenization”).
And the fact that the Soviet government disappointed some after joining is another story.
Well, as for the Baltic countries, formally this is not an invasion. Just there came to power the Communists, who decided to join the USSR. Of course, these Communists were helped by the Soviets, including keeping them in fear of the troops. But formally it is not an invasion.
P.S. The Soviets were not the aggressors in the second world war, therefore none of their actions led to the flare-up of the world conflict and the involvement of other countries, such as Great Britain.
"Good guys," lol. And who are the good guys in this war?
Maybe Poland which got its piece of land from Czechoslovakia? Or France and the United Kingdom who approved this redistribution, although the Soviet Union offered them to unite and maintain an independent Czechoslovakia? And then France, having a 10-fold superiority on the border with Germany, just stood and watched how Poland was beaten, so the good guys do?
The southern Siberian invasion I was mainly referring to was the invasion of Sinkiang/Xinjiang in 1934 and 1937 but they also led expeditions into Afghanistan and all along the Chinese border. I used the term good guys to mock the view that most westerners have of WWII being a black and white situation, a war of good versus evil whereas in reality that is far from the truth. The idea that anyone can be the good guys in a war that kills over 50 million people on all sides is absurd.
To the point of eastern Poland that got ceded to the soviets, just because some ethnic groups saw the soviets as liberators doesn't mean that the occupation was a liberation. Ukrainians and Byelorussians may have been more in favor of the invasion due to the cultural and linguistic links with the Soviets, but Poles and Lithuanians certainly wouldn't want to be absorbed into a state of a predominately different language, religion, and most of all political system of beliefs. In that instance, it is a matter of perspective. The same could be said later on when the German army group north invaded the Baltic region and used liberation from the Soviets as a propaganda piece to get many Latvians Lithuanians and Estonians to join the fight against the Soviets and also to drastically cut down on civil unrest and sabotage behind the lines. One reason the Courland pocket came to exist is because the Germans had significant support from the local population who didn't want to be under Soviet rule again.
To outright state that the Soviets were not aggressors during the war ignores all the terrible things they did and is how people come to the conclusion the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys". In order to accurately represent history, you can't ignore that bad things that you did regardless of justification, whilst at the same time lambasting your enemies for every bad thing they did. This is the kind of tribalism that leads to such a reductionist view among the general public that they can no longer discern propaganda from history. Everyone has biases, but if you let bias shape your narrative without concern for the facts, you aren't a historian.
@@TheWersum Don't ignore all the points I made just to try and do a stupid gotcha. Finland almost certainly would have remained neutral like Sweden and never fought against the Soviets if they didn't give them a reason to. The Soviets invaded because they thought they could beat up on their weak neighbors and take some land. They made up whatever justifications were necessary to sell the war to the people, the army, the international community. The only thing that separates the Germans, Japanese, and Italians from the Soviets in terms of their aggression and contribution to the outbreak of the worldwide war was that they chose the winning side. Anyone trying to defend the Soviets action pre-Barbarossa should realize that all the Axis powers were using the same process in Czechoslovakia, Manchuria, Ethiopia, Poland and elsewhere. The Axis powers have been lambasted consistently for their unjustified warmongering, yet some people want to say the Soviets were justified when doing the exact same thing. The sycophantic level of pro Soviet bias required to take that stance leads me to believe that any further rebuttals aren't worth responding to.
Exactly
@@TheWersum Kremlin trolls around the globe, unite!🇷🇺🇷🇺
You should read Mark Solonin's "June 25: Foolishness or Aggression?" Basically, it was USSR that started that war. Also, although I enjoy your videos a lot, I think if you consider USSR/Russian "official" sources you should take the statements from there with utmost criticality. Taking USSR "facts" with face value results in you making too many logical/historical/factual/analytical mistakes...
Again, it is a mistake to take Russian/Soviet "official historians" statements at the face value. They are dependent of government grants and "sing their song", if you take my meaning. Russian government's stance to take revisionist view of history is well known.
Solonin's main thesis about the topic is in the book "Peacefully sleeping airfields" where he is showing that the defeat of Soviet Air Force was many-faceted, German attacks being least of those. After actually reading Solonin and his technical/statistical analysis, not only some comments from "official historians" I find it hard not to agree with him.
TIK, you ought to look at ALL the relevant suorces, including the Soviet memorandum that was put up at the same time as the German (Hilger's) memorandum from Molotov - Hitler meeting in Berlin 1941. It was released to the public in 1998 from the Soviet archives. Almost nowhere has that source been analyzed except in Johansen's book which I mention here after.
That source shows that Molotov did NOT ask for Hitler's permission to attack Finland a second time despite that myth. Instead Hitler used the opportunity to spead disinformation to the Finns who endevoured the bait obviosly because they were very worried at that time that Hitler would again "sell" Finland like in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This explains why the Finns wanted to hear exactly those news that the Finns received from Germany (ie. that Molotov had as the German's falsely claimed, asked for permission to "liquidate" Finland but Hitler had refused). So the result might have been the Continuation War.
Check Hitler's speech 3.10.1941 in which he says (quoted from memory): "Molotov asked me of "permission" to "liquidate" Finland but I had to "refuse". President Ryti repeated those Hitler's words exactly with Hitler's words in his radiospeech on 26.6.1941 after Operation Barbarossa had begun.
Germany on the other side needed Finland because of the Swedish iron ore and the Finnish nickel + Finnish troops (about 500 000 men in 16 divisions, about 16 % of the population) added to Operation Barbarossa.
Check "Claes Johansen: Hitler's Nordic Ally - Finland and the Total War" (Pen and Sword, Wiltshire, GB, 2016 pages 137-145). Johansen gives all the details.
Rgds
I am gigglin to those "1939 - 1945" years, because Finland sure was an *ally* of Hitler in 1939 and 1945 roflmao. Should've been 1940-1944
That source is common knowledge among historians. The problem is that soviet sources aren't always detailed or tell the whole story. It's also impossible to know if it's all or not. The soviet archives still aren't fully opened. There is also little reason to doubt the german sources because the documents about it were captured/after during the war. The sources are not based on the information provided to finns, but official german documents about it.
What is talking for the taking of Finland is for example the creation of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelo-Finnish_Soviet_Socialist_Republic
Soviet foreign policy towards Finland was also very aggressive until 2Q of 1941.
@ “That source is common knowledge among historians.”
Oh, really? That’s astonishing, especially since I haven’t seen it mentioned at least anywhere among those books I’ve read.
Please, give some examples of such historian’s books where that source is mentioned since you know.
You see, it’s hard to believe you since Claes Johansen’s book is published only in 2016 and he at least does not either mention any other historian’s such texts.
Thanks very much for your kind cooperation!
@@thewoodpekker7980
It isn't used as source because it's not reliable information. The problem is that the soviet archives aren't fully open, we don't know what are redacted, not shown or destroyed. The german document is considered stronger evidence, because it was captured after the WW2 from the archives. There is no question about the authenticity and no one had no reason to document anything but the actual discussion there.
The source is literally available just by googling: histdoc.net/history/ru/hitler-molotov1940.htm and it was published in historical journals early 1990s already, not 1998. I also seem to remember reading very short version of Molotov's entries about the meeting, but they were totally vague about the detailed content. Do you honestly think historians do not follow these things? I'm sure "internet historians" might miss things like that but if you go to actual history department in university and talk somebody who is versed with WW2 and Soviet Union, this is basic knowledge. Hell, people who have just deep interest in the issue know about it.
Please, give some examples of such historian’s books where that source is mentioned since you know.… "I'm sure "internet historians" might miss things like that."
So it turned out that you couldn’t give any sources for your claim’s. So it goes, sometimes. Speak then about internet historian’s.
Cheers!
Hey I wasn't complaining down there tho. You do great work :)