Was Finland's "Continuation War" Pre-Planned? Eastern Front
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2019
- The Finnish Leadership said that they got dragged into the war that they didn't want, and that they only wanted to retake their lost territories. But is this really the case? 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.
Sources and notes will be in the pinned comment. Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
Please consider supporting me on Patreon and help make more videos like this possible. Thank you to my Patreons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory
Here’s some other videos you may be interested in -
MANNERHEIM | History and his Line • MANNERHEIM | History a...
CROATIAN LEGION | 369th Reinforced (Croatian) Infantry Regiment WW2 • CROATIAN LEGION | 369t...
Did the Russian Winter beat the Germans? • Did the Russian Winter...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
FALL BLAU 1942 - Examining the Disaster of German’s second summer offensive • FALL BLAU 1942 - Exami...
My video entitled “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it”
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
#WW2 #ContinuationWar
*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.
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.
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.
'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.
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
The enemy of my enemy might be if not a friend at least a co-belligerent.
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?
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 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...^^
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...
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 .
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.
Truly love this channel, you never cease to amaze me when it comes to the thorough research you put in every video!
im HeH
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.
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.
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?
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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?
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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
Fantastic vid my friend
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.
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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j Well i can see that you are a brainwashed troll of the all knowing Putin.
@@apilolomi4354 you can see with what? Obviously you don't have eyes on your ass of a head
I just saw this video after I asked you to make a video about the Scandinavian countries. Eeep. thanks
This is one of your most interesting videos so far - even as a Brit, the subject matter is compelling.
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
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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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.
Hey I wasn't complaining down there tho. You do great work :)
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?
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j Ehh, not an argument. Will you concede?
@@mabussubam512 that is only comment you deserve. Go play
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.
Thank you for this tik!
Hope you liked it Lenin :)
@@TheImperatorKnight yeah i did keep up the amazing work!
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.
Finland unfortunately had to pick the lesser of two evils. Had no choice but to pick a side, but did their best to appease both sides.
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.
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.
It's a shame the Three Isthmus Greater Finland was not established.
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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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!
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.
Great work. But you didn't mention that Finland did join the Anti-Commintern Pact
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
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
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?
THANK YOU! :)
Best regards from Finland, once again!! Keep up this great work & content.
Alrighty.... Cannot wait for the ride to work tomorrow.
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.
So, was it really the case?
(I guess I'll find out later, but I wanted to post this first lol).
2:40 soviet union couldn't have annexed 12% of Finland's population because the territories taken by the soviets were almost completely evacuated
One of your videos is equivalent to an entire unit about the Second World War in my school.
So Finland did better the start of continuation war than soviets the Winterwar. Soviet shot its own troops in Mainila shelling but Finland played so well in start of continuation war that it made soviets to do first agression in it. Well played, well played..
Mainila wasn't used as a pretext for war. Just so you to know
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.
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
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
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.
>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.
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.
Nice video, two points that maybe you could consider for a follow-up. (1) Could Finland after the start of Barbarossa after the bombing by the Soviets taken a neutral position, did they have to declare war, and (2) could Finland have gotten out of the war earlier? After Stalingrad, already some in the Finnish military leadership were already saying that Finland should get out?
Finland wanted the lost territory back. Germany's Operation Barbarossa gave Finland a good time to do so.
Simple as that.
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.
Hi A fascinating video. Did the Russians at a later date (spring? 41) They wanted Romania?? ( German oil) and was this not the end on nice relations between the 2?
There is no way soviets lost only 200k soldiers. Wasn't it like 450k +wounded and lost doldiers?
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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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?
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j and why would it be bad if Finland was an ally of Germany?
@@JM-dw8eq idk. Ask @dbassman27 and @Corporal Shephard
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
I wout realy love to see your take on the narvik batle. Ore the invasjon of norway
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.
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.
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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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.
Thoughts on the World War Two week by week channel?
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.
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?
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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.
Making a slightly different angled point from TIK, let TIK's assessment stand and add: When the Finns stood alone against the USSR's attack, the best they got from the West was a few relics for aircraft with no spare parts, and some guns that were worn out from service in WWI. If they didn't help the Germans, or have the Germans help them, they would stand against the USSR even more isolated than before. By the president swearing oath to Germany in private letter to Hitler, it made a clear way later to say it wasn't Finland, it was him. A bold president who sacrificed himself for his country.
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)
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.
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...
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 ...
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
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 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.
1:48 should Bessarabia be included in this "transition of territories"? 12:06 Turkey missing Hatay.
Is that tagline a parody of something? I feel like it should be but I don't recognise it
The question is, what if the Finns had pressed on in Leningrad
nothing. They had no means to do anything serious
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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.
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j 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.
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.
200,000 lives to take such little amount of land is beyond me. How could of that been worth all that death and destruction
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
@@user-bw7ke2us2i 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.
@@user-bw7ke2us2i 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.
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”.
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
There is almost NO content on the continuation war on UA-cam. A damn, damn shame
@TIK
First of brilliant analysis i like the back and forth but i feel you are limited in your angles of the subject but hey its impossible to cover them all.
For the sake of transparency being raised with stories from these wars well might induce som bias on my own side.
But i will provide my arguments for you here and you might be able to look at things from a broader perspective different perspective.
Well, your argument that the finns only wanting to retake their lost territories is invalid because they had no exit strategy, is valid but then you have to consider the arguments made against finland in the Winter War where they said that they where worried that they would be used as a springboard against the soviet union. Thus by retaking their lost territories they could then sue for peace and kind of say "hey people cant just invade trough us" (this is all assuming that the finns did not know any part of the molotov-ribbentrop pact) and leaning on the fact that the soviets would not want to go to war against finland again seeing as how costly of a victory it would be for them fully knowing they could never win but for the soviets it could never amass to anything but a pyrrhic victory. By using this line of thinking/arguing the war actions on the finnish side makes more sense atleast for me.
If you where a finn and wanted to maintain independence against the soviet union what would you do? Its being caught between a rock and a hard place, establishing oneself as a prominent military power makes sense because that increases the apparent cost of invading and thusly discouraging invasions from foreign powers such as the Soviet union.
Also the finns clearly knew something was up based on the mobilisation as you point out, but all the arguments that the would have been invaded sooner or later by the soviets is gives more reason to strike pre emptively against them from a that standpoint (yet again endgoal problems here).
Under the assumptions that finland truly belives the Winter war arguments for war made by the soviet mainly for the defense of their own land, a german offensive against the soviet union would give them another reason to attack again finland as it would be important to have a good buffer against St Petersburg(Leningrad)
There are many countries run with low competence around the world, while mannerheim and the others could be acting on "malicious" intents it could be naivety and incompetence as well.
Again there was the promise by Mannerheim that they would attack the soviet union as long as he was in charge, might be a good out for the finns since they can just stop when they choose to by having him step down as commander.
I would love an answer if you have something disproving against my arguments so that i can reconsider them.
In the end finland lost säkkijärvi but still have the polka. :)
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.
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.
@@user-we7lv8pm3o 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.
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.
hey i left you a message on another of your vids what you got to say Tk
There is many reason why Finland got out of war as independent nation. It was because soviets took heavy losses. Finland won all the defensive victories at the end of war. Terrain was good for defending. Finland got new weapons just in time like modern antitank weapons. Finnish artillery had invented newkind of firing system which was highly effective. Soviets knew the price of occupation would been high and time costly. After few Finnish victories in the end of war soviets had to start take their troops to central europe, because they wanted to get Berlin before Western allies. And Finland agreed to throw German troops out of Finland, so it didnt tie soviets troops so much in north. In the end it is "fun" fact that in different times of WW2 Finland was in war against almost every major power and some smaller ones. In Europe there was 3 capital cities that wasnt occupied in any part of WW2 which took part in war. They were Moscow, London and Helsinki.
Henrik O.Lunde's book about Finlands war is completely useless🖓🖓🖓
How much do i have to donate more to SEE a series about romanian involvment in barbarossa and some pre war facts about the teritory that has been lost to soviets,huns,and bulgarians ?
It would be a nice matterial to show to kids in schools.
What option did Finland really have
Choice between 2 Megalomaniacs
One of which they just fought a War with