The Battle of Tali-Ihantala 1944 | WW2 Battlestorm Documentary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2020
- The Battle of Tali-Ihantala narrated with unit movements over a map, backed by sources (listed in the description).
In 1944 The Red Army of the Soviet Union attacked the Finnish Army on the VKT Line during the Continuation War, resulting in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Here are the major unit movements during the battle and a discussion regarding the statistics and the interpretation of the battle. #WW2 #ContinuationWar
Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
Want to ask a question? Please consider supporting me on either Patreon or SubscribeStar and help make more videos like this possible. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos. Thank you to my current Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
- - - - -
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES
The main sources used for this video -
Lunde, H. "Finland's War of Choice: The Troubled German-Finnish Coalition in World War II." Casemate Publishers, 2011.
Nenye, V. “Finland at War: The Continuation and Lapland Wars 1941-45.” Osprey Publishing, Kindle 2016.
And (unfortunately) also wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
RELATED VIDEO LINKS
Finland's Continuation War in a Nutshell • Finland's Continuation...
The Courland Pocket 1944-45 FULL BATTLESTORM History Documentary • The Courland Pocket 19...
MANNERHEIM | History and his Line • MANNERHEIM | History a...
Hitler's Scandinavia WW2 • Hitler's Scandinavia W...
My "Was Finland's "Continuation War" Pre-Planned?" video • Was Finland's "Continu...
BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD S1/E1 - The 6th Army Strikes! • BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD...
My “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it” video
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK
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.
Normally I wouldn’t do a Battlestorm-like video for a Patron Q&A. However, I needed to try out a new method of creating Battlestorm animations before returning to the Stalingrad series, and this question was ideal for that because it was both small and short, with limited sources. So what I’m trying to say is that this was more of a one-off, and I can’t promise to do Battlestorm-like videos for future Q&As, even if Patrons asked me to do that
Thank you, TIK! :D
If you have Russian or Finnish sources, I'm a translator and can handle the Russian material-free of charge
Also have a very good friend from Finland, so say the word and Finnish sources can be at your disposal
Best Regards,
A Patron
@@battleofwill345 This guys right were are why i still like the internet. (:
When are you going to learn Russian ?!!
Thanks Tik. Being married to a finnish girl, we always knew her late grandpa was in the war. All we knew was that he lost his eye in battle and was left for dead behind enemy lines but somehow managed to make his way back, taking a finnish deserter back also. He never talked about the war and just went to work and raised a family afterwards eventually dying in his sleep in a rocking chair at old age. Few months ago, we wanted to know more and requested state archives from the army. Turns out this man was in the thick of it in this exact battle serving with the 6th division's 12th infantry regiment. He remained afraid of thunder throughout his life.
This battle saw first use of the correction converter for Finnish artillery, which is what modern day armies use today. They didn't let even the germans know about it, and it's why the Finnish artilery was so damn effective here, wiping out soviet formations in their staging areas.
Are there any sources about this other than Koskimaa?
@@chainoad Please read about artillery general Vilho Petter Nenonen. The man was pretty much a genius. What he developed, is still used by modern artillery. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilho_Petter_Nenonen
My grandfather was a "measuring officer" (mittausupseeri) in the Finnish Heavy Battery 1 at Tali-Ihantala. He had met General Nenonen and thought very highly of him.
I heard the shell concentration was such that it even destroyed the tanks. Hell, had we had aerial burst, or other kind of proximity fuse, we'd have gone all the way to the Urals.
@Suomi Perkele! Yep, and now there is MLRS and other rocket artillery, AMOS and NEMO mortar shoot and scoot systems. A land attack on Finland will fail. Period.
Finish victory = Finish survival in WW2 between major power. That’s all they wanted.
They never dreamed of taking Moscow or even Leningrad, not even move the border, just wanted to be left alone.
The heroism of Finish solders made it possible.
Greetings from Russia.
I agree. A lot of hard work and admittedly some luck made it possible for Finland to remain independent during and after this troubled time.
you are one of the very few russian’s who know the truth about this most russian’s what i have met in social media platforms have said that both wars were finlands fault and that finns wanted it but in reality we wanted to be in peace and stay out of war.
@@kessu1863This may be true for Winter War but in all honesty, Finnish government (and major part or even majority of people) wanted to reconquer (make war) the lost territories as soon as a there was a chance to do so. Operation Barbarossa was that opportunity and Finland took it.
If Finland only wanted peace and to be left alone, it wouldn't have allowed Germany to base hundreds of thousands of troops on it's soil. It wouldn't have mined the gulf of Finland with Germany and it certainly wouldn't have crossed the old border in 1941.
Yes, without the trauma suffered in the Winter War, Finland wouldn't have joined Germany's offensive to the Soviet Union but it's dishonest to say that Finland was just a victim throughout WW2 when it also had it's eyes on expanding it's territory on Soviet Union's expense in 1941. Yes officially Finland held a position that even in Continuaton War, she was just defending herself but it's painfully obvious this stance was upheld only to have a somewhat plausible deniability if Germany's attack failed. If Germany had marched all the way to the Urals, Finland would have happily taken all of East Karelia to herself.
@@Karpaneen
You're ignoring the fact that the Soviet aggression against Finland continued during the Interim Peace of 1940-41 and that they were preparing to invade Finland yet again. Finland did not even align towards Germany out of desire to retake the lost territories but to have security guarantees against any further Soviet aggression after the winter war. Finland just barely managed to avoid occupation in late 1940, when the Soviet military build-up on the Finnish border was complete and the Soviets were already starting negotiations with Germany about continuing the effort against the Finns. In November 1940, the Soviet foreign minister V. Molotov was openly asking Hitler for a free hand to treat Finland similarly to the Baltic States, which were occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union a few months prior. It was only Hitler's adamant opposition against such a plan, which most likely saved Finland from Soviet occupation at this point. Finland did not really have a genuine option to stay out of WW2.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Peace
@@Karpaneen Karelia is a vital part of Finland. Giving it away to Russia would never be a working solution, therefore the war continued, as the name "Continuation War" also suggests.
Finland was justified to provide the right to self-determination for its own people in their own land.
Im Brit/Swede/Finn who grew up in three countries. Im a veteran and totally anti-war due to the fact that most wars nowadays are serving economic and political purposes and are not about defending our countries in the western hemisphere. My Finnish grandpa on my mothers side is one of the few Finnish veterans alive, believe it or not, but he is still working as a gardener as a 94 year old. Thats what they call SISU!
Defense and offense are the same thing
@ They are not
@@jesper7993 They are
Awsum!
Once British prime/defence-minister asked from Finnish minister of defence, that how much there are Soviet troops in Finland? Finnish minister answered: Half million on the border at six feet under.
AceTanker It wasn’t Finnish minister, but general A. Ehrnrooth. Funny though.
And what are their foes to count? I wonder why he didn't say a million or even two.
@@user-ol2dv2ou4b because that wouldn't be true. I've allways wanted to ask if the russians here could provide some info about these events from their point of view/archives, they don't seem to like to talk about these events
@@Pekokakko I am always in the mood for constructive dialogue. However, I consider any fantasy to be propaganda and lies. If you want, we can discuss this topic.
@@user-ol2dv2ou4b weeell, it's not so much a discussion I want as just the russian view to Winter War and maybe the fighting in Tali-Ihantala, how they see it 🤔
Finland did not really surrender, condionally or unconditionally. Instead there was an armistice between Finland and Soviet Union, where Soviet Union for example dictated the placement of borders between the countries. This armistice was followed by a formal peace agreement couple years later.
Conditions of the peace agreement were harsh, but since Finland was still in control of its own borders, Finnish army still existed and there were no Soviet troops inside Finnish borders (save an area close to Finnish capital Helsinki, ceded as a military base to the Soviets), Finland did not surrender.
No matter. Matter is what is fixed in documents.
@@mikezuev6245 There has been nonsense fixed in documents throughout history.
Tomato - tomato.
@@mikezuev6245 What is this comment even trying to say.
A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one. Godspeed TIK
It was a bit of a surprise to me too, since I only decided to make this into a Battlestorm last week
200,000 videos are ready with a million more on their way
I really enjoy these battlestorms- not just the Stalingrad, but the Courland and Northafrican too
@@8bitorgy hello there
@@8bitorgy magnificent, aren't they?
My granpa fought as a tank gunner at Tali-Ihantala. It was a captured Soviet T-34/85 tank.
Hienosti puolusti isänmaata punamyrskyltä.
mu vaari oli joukkueenjohtaja tali-ihantalas yli puolet miehist kuoli yhes päiväs mut mu vaari ja jotkut muut ehti pakoo ennenku ne jyrättii!
Hyvä me suomalaiset! Pappas oli kova jätkä.
One author that has gained access on Soviet archives regarding the conflict is Bair Irincheev. I highly recommend his books on the topic, as it gives the battle the much longed Soviet perspective. Bair is a very objective historian and has arranged tours into venues of battle, and even owns a war museum at Viipuri. His title ”Vyborg 1944: The Last Soviet-Finnish Campaign on the Eastern Front” has great take on this. It is to be noted, thou, that the Soviet war diaries and arhives tend to omit the events at Tali-Ihantala. Irincheev, how ever, has found headcount reports from 30. GAG archives, which highlight shocking losses and indicate that the Soviet spearhead were completely spent. Given the overall situation and development in the Baltics, the Soviets could not allocate fresh units to north in order to complete deeper objectives - and rather committed in racing to Berlin.
They could, they could not, here you can fantasize as much as you want.
For Stalin, the Finnish direction was secondary. If you look at the scale, what operations were carried out by the Red army after 44, the Finnish army had no chance. If you look at the equipment of the Finnish army for 44 years, it has lagged behind for years.
Luftwaffe Detachment Kuhlmey's effort to the outcome in Tali-Ihantala was also crucial. Between June 22nd and July 6th over 1 000 sorties were completed by the Finnish Air Forces and the Detachment Kuhlmey. After the Finns managed to counter the Soviet offensive at Tali-Ihantala the USSR attempted to make a breakthrough attacking similarly at Äyräpää-Vuosalmi and during the Battle of Vyborg Bay in July and at Ilomantsi in August.
Finnish-sauce privilege
Yup, those STUKAS were crucial in stopping the soviet attack
yes, one of their primary goals were to shut down the river/lake crossing that was the only supply route for the soviet divisions in that salient on the schema. And they managed to do so for a critical period of time allowing finns to regroup and form a solid defensive lines on good(hills) positions. I remember reading some soviet AA unit memoirs about that battle near that crossing. It was mentioned most of their AA guns became broken since they used them non stop to repel stuka attacks.
Iv read some where that Kurt Kuhlmey was invited to Finland during the early 90s to commemorate a memorial plate of the defence of Finland 1944.
During the visit Kuhlmey was to have said,
- I'm glad I did something good in that war.
@@popsey72 He was a big man and a hero.
"I am not in favor ... of states"
Has TIK finally gone of the deep end and become a full-blown ancap?
He is now full blown urcommunist, like Shrek. Get out of my cave!
/s
"Has TIK finally gone of the deep end and become a full-blown ancap?"
As I replied to someone else - I'm a capitalist, and I'm close to the anarchist camp, but I understand that States (hierarchies of society, e.g. corporations) will emerge naturally. So rather than being anti-State, I'm anti-coercion. A State can exist, so long as all involved are cooperating with the State. Once force (e.g. taxation) is involved, it becomes a criminal entity in my view, which is why I'm against all current governments, and corporations using the "law" to gain an unfair advantage in the unfree market
If you haven't seen it, here's my "Public vs Private video" which you may find interesting ua-cam.com/video/ksAqr4lLA_Y/v-deo.html
@@TheImperatorKnight How a state can exist without taxation, is beyond me. I do agree that states are inevitable. I studied political science, public administration and environmental science. I have been working in the core of the Dutch state eversince. My basic attitude is the same as yours. States are to be mistrusted. It is a necessary evil, just as armies are. I still think that is the most healthy attitude for any civil servant. But I would not go as far as to condemn it. It is a monster, that can do useful work, given some food (taxes), but it must be kept in check at all times by everybody!
@@ronaldderooij1774 I guess a mix between the Greek democracy and a subscription system ? If you pay taxes you get the right to use state services with benefits and have the right to vote. But if you don't pay taxes then you can still live within the state, but you'll pay market price for state services and won't have the right to vote for the government (and thus have no influence over the laws you have to follow).
That way you could have a state that exist without coercion. If someone wants to be a libertarian, they can just decide not to pay taxes. But if they want to benefit from the state or have any power over it, then they gotta pay.
@@ronaldderooij1774, taxation violates the principle of free markets. Thus, taxation is evil.
Why exactly do we need states? Humans strived before this relatively new invention.
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.
While the 150,000 estimate is indeed likely high, the 60,000 figure also seems extremely low.
To be completely fair, before the battle of Tali-Ihantala and the other late defensive battles the Soviets WERE steamrolling the Finnish defenses. It was partly more of a disorganized flight than a fighting retreat.
You don't achieve such results on the attack with a 1:1 ratio in strength over unfavorable terrain. Not even with a 2:1 advantage.
Of course, I cannot say for sure that this was NOT the case or back it up with any sources, it just doesn't make logical sense.
You have to remember the massive artillery barrage at the beginning. It was so massive it burried men alive in to the defence line. It was not a retreat, men ran in complete horror.
Exactly. Finnish historians always use number 150 000 soviet troops. Trying to be unbiased at comparing finnish and soviet estimates just gives wrong answers. Finland was democratic country even at wartime, Soviet Union so far from it.
People are always amazed that Finland "beat" the USSR in the Winter War. But they don't seem to realize that they did it a second time. If, of course, we define a victory as forcing Stalin to make peace terms because of the men that died and the resources wasted.
And yet Finland was the one who made peace terms ...
@@cccpredarmy And yet Finland was only "losing" country in Europe that was never occupied by Allies.
@Magni56 lost like poland and estonia. hmm. morale victory.
@Magni56 Obviously if the Winter War and Continuation War would've lasted longer, Finland would've lost badly. But the fact is that the USSR didn't crush Finland in either war because it wasn't worth the trouble, also as someone said above, it was the only Axis country to avoid occupation. There's a reason why won was in quotation marks.
@Magni56 The Soviets got their pre-war aims in the Winter War, and more, but they didn't fight the war simply for Karelia. Why would they create a puppet communist government, claiming to speak for all working-class Finns, if they were simply planning on occupying Karelia? Finland was also going to be part of the USSR's sphere of influence according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, along with the Baltic states, eastern Poland and Moldova, which they all, obviously, annexed. As for the Continuation War, the USSR clearly wanted to go further, the size of this battle, along with the other battles going on along the front, show that the Soviets clearly planned to push further and occupy more land. What would be the point of sending many hundreds of thousands of men, who could be fighting the Nazis, to fight against a country who already wanted peace? Unless the Soviet aims hadn't changed since 1939 and they wanted to occupy Finland. Again, technically speaking, Finland was forced to accept their loses from 1940, but considering the USSR sent 150,000 men into this battle, they clearly were trying to get more land. Finland was still badly hurt by the peace terms, but they managed to avoid being directly in the USSR's sphere of influence, even if Finland was very close to the Soviet Union by the standards of a neutral country.
Very interesting video, the Finns really are a weird player in this war, they seem to not want to go all out in order to not lose too much in case things go south (as they did) but they also bite back in case of an enemy attack (as they almost encircled some soviet divisions). It's nice seeing more details about those small countries from all sides. Keep up the good work TIK !
Thumb's up and I agree. The Finns lost the Winter war and the Continuation War but they did it in such a grand style that one can't help but admire those glorious bastards!
The idea was;
We can't conquer our foes and any attempt to do so would leave us annihilated.
We can possibly put pressure on the enemy through attrition to force them to negotiate.
In order to have a more favorable deal, it's better to apply pressure without causing resentment, or overdue hostility.
From the get-go, Finland only wanted to be left in peace, and Mannerheim figured it would be hard to convey that sentiment if they went all out.
The obvious counter-argument would have been 'well if you wanted peace, why did you go all-out on the offensive then?'
@@billosby9997 All about finding a way to stay independent. If Stalin would have been left with significantly more breathing room, he would have had no problem taking the entirety of Finland. So this meant there had to be some degree of co-ordination with Germany, and their help was crucial. The Continuation War offensive is also easy to explain. You take land for a stronger defense and more bargaining chips at the peace negotiations, which are always going to be the ultimate goal.
We had both a first hand experience, and a well based fear of Stalin and communism. Annexation would have meant losing everything, homes, farms, money, food. There is also the rumor of a plan to send all Finnish men to the gulags, and take over properties and women. I know it can't be proven, but that's also not something you want to take a chance on.
For a long time I wondered how Finland managed to escape getting sucked into the Warsaw Pact after WWII, especially considering they attacked the USSR in 1941 in an almost insulting kick'em-when-they're-down manner. But after researching it and seeing TIK's take on things I can't help but compare them to the Swiss mentality when it comes to defense. They're small and weak by comparison to their much larger neighbors, but anyone messing with them is going to get sucked into a quagmire and bled dry in the process of invading them. After getting their butts kicked twice in 1939 and 1944 the Soviets probably felt like it wasn't worth the trouble. Even if they waited until 1945 and invaded after Germany was mostly defeated, the casualties from trying to subdue and occupy the country would have been horrible.
@@Raskolnikov70 There is one thing more to take into account, and that was the Salpa Line ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salpa_Line ) - the strongest of the various fortified lines constructed by Finland in the WW2 period. It's existence may very well have played a part in the USSR abandoning any plans of conquering Finland completely.
Thanks TIK,these finnish heroes may and shouldn't never ever not/nor be forgotten ! Perkala ,the snow speaks... i am a fan of this series from day one !
I am a big admirer of the Finns.
Perkaamo perkele
Fairly balanced view of this battle. One thing which supports TIK's estimate of the troop numbers comes from the so called Matti-patrols, Finnish special units left behind to observe and spy Soviet actions in the Karelian Isthmus. These two to three men patrols informed the Finnish HQ that Red army had begun to withdraw materiel, tanks and artillery back from the front AND that no many troops were returning. This information made the Finnish leadership determined to fight it out to the end since they knew that the enemy was already done. Thus the "Miracle of Tali-Ihantala" was fought out with the Siviet troops already tied up into that battle. And if TIK is right about the size of the troops, the Soviets lost almost half of those available to them. This was the end of one of the Five Strategic Attacks planned bt STAVKA for the summer of 1944. And yes, the idea was to crush the Finns and take over the land. It did not work out. Tali-Ihantala was one of the important battles of that summer, but so was the battle of Lake Nietjärvi where according to Russian historian Yuri Kilinin 32. Guards army corp was destroyed 15.-17.7. in what the russians called the Thermopylai of Ladoga Karelia. This force was according to Kilinin "the best trained, best equipped and most fire powered unit in the Red army in the summer of 1944". It was a strategic unit of STAVKA and it was defeated. Further up in north in the battle of Ilomantsi Finns managed to stop the last Soviet effort to break Finland. Thus Finland became the only nazi ally not occupied and destroyed by the Allies in the war.
Brave Finns. Great respect from Novi Pazar (south west Serbia)
There were two continental european nations that participated in WW2 that didn't have their capitals conquered.
Soviet Union and Finland
@@Robbini0 I think Finland was the only country on the Axis side which was not occupied nor it's capital Helsinki was taken. London and Washington were not conquered either. And yes, Moscow too. Sweden managed to stay out and thus Stockholm was spared too.
@@samiparkkonen444 Do notice that I said ' two continental european nations that participated in WW2 that didn't have their capitals conquered.'
Sweden , Spain & Portugal didn't participate.
UK is across the channel.
USA is across the ocean.
And several nations who were allies or became allies had their capitals occupied in Continental Europe.
@@Robbini0 Duly noted.
Got to love the Finns. They used the land to their advantage and relied on quick movements of forces to blunt Soviet advances.
+Tuor 80 Yeas they did amazingly well in both the Winter war and this continuation war. The fact is that Finland was threatened to be invaded by Germany to launch a northern front against the Russians, so the Finns basically had no choice. If Germany had invaded Finland, the Russians would have "liberated" them and Finland would either become a satellite state of Soviet union or become a part of it? This battle saved Finland from becoming a part of Soviet union.
This was a planned offensive, and you don’t launch an offensive from a position of parity. Given their experiences in the Winter War, the Soviets CERTAINLY wouldn’t do so against the Finns. The rule of thumb was that 3:1 odds were necessary to be confident of victory, so the idea that the idea that the Soviets attacked 54,000 troops, some dug in, with only 48-60,000 of their own is laughable.
It’s true that a significant amount of the Finnish force was held in reserve, and attackers will concentrate forces to seek local advantage, mitigating the need yo achieve 3:1 advantage across the entire front, but knowing that the Finns had such large reserves available, they would still have figured in Soviet planning for the offensive, and still demanded additional forces to counter.
150,000 is a much more credible estimate than the Soviet figure. I’d definitely go with the Finnish sources on this point.
Not just merely significant, but assuming the figures given were true, 60% of the Finnish forces in the battle were reinforcements. That leaves 20,000 Finnish soldiers in the beginning of the battle, which is pretty close to the 3:1 advantage with the 48,000-60,000 Soviet figure. Though with my knowledge being as far as a bit of wikipedia and this video, now I question whether or not the Soviets had the intelligence to figure out the number of Finnish reserves.
I think tik once said that soviets divisions had 2 regiments instead of 3.
That means 150.000÷3×2.
100.000
But also understrength units so Lets say 90.000 men.
That is a 1 to 3 advantage, over the initial 30.000 Fins.
That seams good
The 3 : 1 ratio is a tactic that works for a company-battalion-regiment. Only part of the 21st army's forces took part in the battle. In total, 260 thousand Soviet troops were concentrated on the Isthmus (infantry, artillery, tanks, sappers, aviation, logistics). The Finnish direction was auxiliary, while the Belarusian direction was the main one. All the resources went there. 48,000 could not be, but 60-70 thousand is quite.
@@opperturk124 why this nonsense?
Nah just nah bro . Those are Nonsensical
I agree that the Finns had little options and decided not to become a part of the Soviet Union by fighting a defensive war. I also think that fighting on your land motivates the soldiers and that is why Finland is their own country.
Yeah indeed. Some other history/war videos suggest that conscript armies are somehow worse than "professional" armies. When you are fighting for your existence and freedom... Yeah well if you think a mercenary would do better there, then look at Afghanistan for example.
Actually Finns had a plan to exit the war. After Stalingrad Finns started to find a way out of the war by using their USA relationships. The problem was the US demand to cut ties with Germany. This was not possible in 1943, when secret talks began with USA. Because Finns needed German grain, fertilizers.and weapons to stem the Russian tide in 1944, Finns could not exit the war. After the Tali-Ihantala battle, when the grim attitude of the Soviets was forced to change by the Finnish army stiff resistance, Finnish government successfully exited the war. I have visited the Tali-Ihantala battleground several times and the place is so rich and full of military history. Not to forget to mention that my ancestors used to live in the Karelian Isthmus peacefully until the Soviet Union attacked by the year of 1939 and destroyed our living.
Ari Stenberg that might also explained a bit more why Stalin attacked - a more pro-US Finland want wanted
The Finnish plan to exit the war included the pre-Winter War borders. So actually the Finnish attitude was forced to change in June 1944 as well.
@@Pythoner You're right, pre-Moscow1940 peace borders were the goal for Finns: to get lost territory back. One of the first Finns to understand the goal was not going to be possible to achieve was the Marshal Mannerheim. In his diary he wrote on 6th of December 1941: Germany has failed to win the Operation Barbarossa by not catching Moscow before the winter. The grim realism took time to spread among Finnish politicians, but after Stalingrad it was nothing but obvious. Disclaimer: in Finland there was a small group of nationalists (IKL) who dreamed about "The Greater Finland", but they were a minority, not the mainstream of politics. Their party got less than 7 per cent of the votes - so they were marginalized, but yes, they were pro-German.
@@Pythoner At the first beginning in 1939 the Finnish attitude was to be neutral. If it was respected by Russians we would not need discussions like this at all.
@@AS-vb2ci and AKS (Akateeminen Karjala Seura) was nationalist group which dreamed about Aunus(Olonets Karelia) and Viena(White Karelia) and wanted Greater Finland.
How about the battle of Raate road next? That's another legendary battle with some wild numbers too. Don't know if there's any better sources on that though.
Hardly "wild' numbers. For whole Suomussalmi battle: 11000 finns vs 25000 red army soldiers (~900 KIA finns vs ~5000-7000 KIA soviet). Big defeat of Red army of corse, but scale of soviet disaster was very exaggerated in finnish historiography
@@SAVSAV1212 Yes, exactly. The sources vary widely. Would be interesting to hear TIK's take on that!
I've visited the battle memorial myself and drove the entire length of the road on the Finnish side to the partisan museum and I have to say the Soviets were stupid to even try to come through that route in the first place. You could barely see 3 meters into the woods and I'm quite sure the forest is less thick nowadays than it was back then. It's literally the perfect ambush spot. The road is also not wide at all for heavy traffic. Also since most of the places of fighting were named after the farms who owned the land, the roadsigns still show the surnames/farm owners names in case you want to visit a certain place.
As always, love the quality and detail. I have to say there's nothing out there as detailed and well-researched as your work, keep it up! :)
History is key and that's why I love Tiks BattleStorm videos because it take history and combines it with quality entertainment. Keep it up!
Tik please just stick to exploring the hysterical inaccuracies of Halder.
I feel bad for constantly picking on Halder... but only slightly. He deserves it
@@TheImperatorKnight The Conrad von Hoetzendorff of WW2, perhaps?
jmullner76 Luigi Cordana: are you challenging me?
@@TheImperatorKnight If you put out a "Lies and Inaccuracies of Halder" Series i´ll emediatly become a patreon. Because THAT is the kind of cultural enrichment our world needs
@@TheImperatorKnight well, its partially because of him germany lost the war, so i think we should be thanking him. Oh and he also created the desert fox too, so i thank him for that too i guess
Good timing because yesterday was Memorial Day in Finland.
I'd like to say I carefully planned it that way, but I honestly didn't know
@@TheImperatorKnight It's not really a big deal in Finland either. Because Finland has only ever fought wars for her independence, the Independence Day is when we remember the veterans and the fallen.
Very well made, I watch every single video. Thanks TIK!
I really like that you just get straight to the point instead of having an necessary animated intro to all of your videos. You're not bad for a Manc!
He doesn't sound like a Manc. TIK pronounces his "T"s now. Well not all the time. :)
As a information for all Conversationalists: There were going on several battles on the Karelian Isthmus almost at the same time wtith Tali-Ihantala. And they all made up the crucial and essential battle on the VKT-line where Russians invasion was prevented by Finns. Here briefly names and time periods : I. Tienhaara in 22 -25 Juny, II. Tali-Ihantala in 25.6 - 9.7. III Viipurinlahti in 30.6 - 10.7 and IV Vuosalmi-Äyräpää in 4-17.7. All those took place in the same VKT-line having lenght about 17 miles (35 km). Vuosalmi-Äyräpää battle was in same size with Tali-Ihantala. So the defense battle in summer 1944 was much more than Tali-Ihantala.
Great video, TIK! I really enjoyed this "smaller" battle for a change:) (good work with Stalingrad!)
Also nice to see Czechoslovakian helmets at 6:20
1st :-)
A little disappointed it’s not Stalingrad though
2nd. And don't worry, I'm working on Stalingrad
Tbh I like these small one episode battlestorms like Somaliland campaign.
I an also disappointed .
It is such a short battle also. You could at least have described it down to platoon and squad level to make it 10 episode of 45 min. 😉
I'm not. That Stalingrad campaign is exhausting to watch imagine how tough it must be to have produced it?
i always like it when the Finnish army performs well vs the Soviets
Yeah. The small guy more that holding his own. Impressive bunch.
I like when anyone performs well against the Soviets. Screw those guys.
Tik, THANK YOU! I have always wanted more info on this battle and a battlestorm is probably the greatest form you could put it in. Keep up your great work!
Edit: tik should do a battle storm on the Lapland war or a patron should ask the question did the 20th German mountain army have any fighting left in it by 1944?
Finnish leadership never expected any Soviet offensive as the race was on into Berlin. It's still debated matter how the readiness fiasco happened. But apparently Mannerheim was kept dark on purpose, he never saw those intel reports.
Yes they expected. They knew it was coming. That`s why the 3th divison was moved from Lapland to the Isthmus. But they expected the main strike would come later, after strike to Berlin.
07:49 - TIK is not a God?
*sits down in shock*
I'm sorry to disappoint you :)
Perhaps a “Demi-God” then?
@@CGGrognard, only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
@@TheImperatorKnight Maybe you're History Jesus. We already have Gun Jesus on Forgotten Weapons, so you can be History Jesus. LOL Seriously though, great video, TIK!
I'm a Finn and I find your statistic great. I like your reasoning and it seems more accurate than what Finnish history says.
So the Soviets are going to have an offense but only provide 50000 men and measly number of artillery pieces not how they were doing things at the time yes they had bigger fish to fry but what?? The Finn's suddenly got stupid & weak? If I have only 2 choices I'll go with the Finn's.
Exactly what I thought. This is THE offensive to knock Finland out of the prolonged war and the soviet union, the same soviet union that has shown time and time again how easily it's willing to throw countless waves of men against fortified mg fire, sends pathetic 60000 men against dug in enemy that's almost at the same strength. Calling bullshit on that one. Soviet military leaders were goddamn morons but they never had a problem with sending too little men.
Thank you for this video! Love from Finland
Will you cover burma maybe in the future?
Love your videos.
Yes, eventually. But I'm concentrating on the European Theatre for now
@@TheImperatorKnight Wow, thanks for the reply and a great quality video as always.
Would love this.
Glad to see historical battle videos with acknowledgment of potential bias and trying to overcome them
I have seen more history of Suomi (Finland), the land of my grandfather, from you than I think from any other source. While other content providers may sometimes cover parts of both wars, your anslysis is more complete, detailed, and understandable. What feedback have you received from Finns? We are a proud community but also very logical, at least from my view from the US.
As he said, he makes enemies of us, as we believe ours, mostly..may be a little high, but certainly not to the degree he believes
A smaller force attacking and defeating a larger force? Who do those Soviets think they are? Finns?
Love you man, keep it up
TIK! I really enjoyed the video BUT! You really should point out that Finnish artillery was in key role. Finns bombard hard on Soviet staging areas where they roll tanks and troops before unleashing attack. Many those Soviet planned attacks got canceled due heavy artillery srikes by the Finns. It makes sence too. How you are going to be ready for charge if enemy is shelling you like mad man. Wrecked arsenal and wounded soldiers screaming around you. I Bet Soviets were busy to clean the mess first instead of an attack.
The finns invented new methods in artillery. Without beeing too technical, the effect of this new methods was that the team-work between artillery and infantry was much more coordinated than it traditionally used to be. That is the great finnish invention in war fare, I would say. The new methods meant that they could fire more accurate, which saved ammunitions.
It was originally devised in Winter war to compensate the chronic lack of field guns and ammunition -Finns simply could not shell 10 000 rounds/day like the Soviets could, so they had to make every gun count to the max. and Nenonen found the way to aim and redirect gunnery fire faster and more reliably than any other army at the time. He's 'korjausmuunnin' or 'diversion' converter was basically a special yardstick and a book of notes for pre-calculated gunnery placement points in the area but they allowed even an inexperienced gunnery sergeant to hit like a marksman with minimal training in their use.
My takes of Stalin's tendencies when it comes to geopolitics:
Stalin was an opportunist throughout his rule for the most part. That is, he is like the pendulum that swings between caution and expansion.
Example 1: The Bolshevik conquest of Transcaucasia. Despite his Georgian background, Stalin had no qualm about brutally crushing nationalist movements in Transcaucasia. These nationalist factions lacked significant foreign support, hence Stalin did not have to give a damn about his victims to anyone.
Example 2: The Battle of Khalkhin Gol. While the Germans succeeded with their initial onslaught against the Poles, they became increasingly concerned about the Soviets keeping their part of the non-aggression pact as the Soviets remained quiet. It was not until the signing of the cease-fire between the Soviets and the Japanese Stalin ordered his forces to invade Eastern Poland.
Example 3: The Katyn Massacre. To Stalin, an independent Poland was intolerable. (Hitler and his generals were on the same page regarding Poland. :P ) Having gained control over Esatern Poland, it is not terribly surprising to find him not wasting a second neutralizing Poland by wiping out over 20,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia. Thanks to the non-aggression pact and the rapid conquest of Poland, Stalin's hands were free.
Example 4: The Korean War. Initially, Stalin cautioned Kim Il-Sung against invading South Korea. The last thing Stalin wanted was to have an outright war with the US, let alone to be the first one to break the US-Soviet agreement oven the Korean Peninsula. However, Kim was adamant about the Korean reunification and pestered Stalin accordingly. Still feeling uneasy, Stalin had Kim to get in touch with Mao Ze-Dong. Only after securing the Chinese Communist support, Stalin relented. Although he supplied the communist side throughout the Korean War, he went no further than sending some Soviet pilot 'volunteers'. Unfortunately for the Soviet Union, this lackluster Soviet assistance played a factor behind the Sino-Soviet split as well as North Korea gradually weaning itself from the Soviet influence.
I like these so much more than the Q&A vids
Technically this is a Q&A and a Battlestorm - which is unusual
@@TheImperatorKnight yea it is a unique video. Dont get.me wrong I still like all the videos you do. And can't imagine how much work goes into them. But I especially love the battlestorm videos. Which I guess isn't too suprising.
Cool stuff, TIK! It was especially interesting to hear your view on the statistics and the Finnish estimates for the Soviet divisions and casualties. Your take on the signifigance of the participation of the German flight-detachment Kühlmey would be fun one to hear. Cheers from Finland, torilla tavataan!
Great Vid, again, they all are. Just joined your Patreon to support your work.
Wow thank you!
@@TheImperatorKnight My absolute pleasure, Thank You TIK.
In regard to the Soviet quantities applied to any particular battle, I'd trust the bigger number, as they had full-willingness to commit huge numbers to any battle- they preferred to be effective rather than efficient, so they regularly used overkill and overwhelmed their opponents as a policy.
Not only that, but also tactics. In attack you want to have three times the size of defences. It would be borderline suicidal to attack with less strength than that.
Problem is that it was not the only Soviet offensive in 1944. There's a difference between what you want and what you get. And competing front politics might force an attack even if postponing would be the tactical wiser choice. As troops were pulled out against the end the front commanders might knew they would not get stronger this, thus it was the best time to strike. Also in the original attack the Soviets had 3 times the numbers with the lower figure and then we assume they had estimate the size of the Finnish forces correctly.
@@barthoving2053 They'd not hesitate to overcommit to all their offensives either; they really did believe that quantity has a quality all its own, and they believed that more is better... so it stands to reason that they really did commit all forces to each of their offensives combined, even overcommitting their troops to each of these battles, with overstrength divisions in the process.
@@TealJosh Nah just admit you don't know anything
@@chissstardestroyer Overstrength divisions
Soviet divisions in this period were certainly not overstrength
I think the Soviet calculation of their own forces is low. If 60,000 was the true figure and the losses are accurate that would have left the Red Army with 32,000 men on that front. The divisions that were sent South appear to have comprised about a third of the remaining strength and included the entire 30th Guards Rifle Corps however it could have been as low as a quarter of what was left. If we take this lower value then that leaves just 24,000 Soviet troops facing over twice as many Finns and Germans.
It seems highly unlikely that the Soviets successfully forced back their enemies that far with an approximate 1:1 ratio of troops, that would not have been seen subsequently as a failure but a huge success.
The Finnish estimate may have included those elements of the 23rd Army that were only introduced in early July. Some authors consider the battle to have ended between 4th and 9th July and to count the Battle of Vuosalmi separately whilst others include it in the larger battle. This would force the estimate higher by about 25,000 men.
Alternatively the Finns may have assumed they were facing 19 reduced divisions operating at 2/3 strength, approximately 120,000, plus supporting units at corps level and above ammounting to 25% of division strength, that would take us to 150,000. This figure would give the Soviets a 2.5:1 advantage, not quite the traditional 3:1 required to ensure a successful attack and goes some way to explaining why the Red Army failed to achieve its objectives.
If we were to apply both adjustments this implies that the 150,000 was an underestimate and that the failure of 23rd Army to deploy its full strength earlier in the battle was a mistake of epic proportions.
TIK I listened to two gentlemen from the Vietnam War talking about the Ho Chi Minh Trail. It was very interesting I just wondered if you would make a video on that sent to good about wars. Thank you for putting on all the videos
An other very good video, with quality and interesting subject! Thanks! :)
Didn't the Soviets like to achieve a 5 to 1 ratio of troops if they were going to attack?? Maybe they couldn't achieve that much, but would they try to attack with ruffly the same number as the defenders?
You’d think a chess player would also know math, maybe not.
5 to 1? That is an insane ratio. As far as I know they barely achieved that on a regular basis. From a tactical point of view, a 2 to 1 ratio is already an extreme comparison
That is cold war development, but that is generally true. Any offense is made by concentrating forces for local superiority. In this regard, lets say that town is protected by 100 men. Attacker would use 500 men to attack it in hopes of breaking it quickly. Then advancing through that gap into flank and rear of enemy lines. This army does not have 5 times more troops, it merely draw those troops from other parts of battleline which is not expected to be in heavy fighting and are here just to put pressure on whole frontline.
I feel like artillery in a defensive role is often underestimated. Yes artillery is very good at softening up defensive positions for an assault, but it is also great at taking the wind out of an attacking force mid assault. Pre ranged artillery guns in a defensive position are incredibly effective at denying an attacking force an advantageous attacking route. I assume the Finnish artillery was able to use these kind of tactics when the Soviet armor was forces down narrow paths between lakes and swamps.
Colonel liutenant Karl Kuhlmey, commander of the Luftwaffe Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey that supported the finnish defenders, told how they knocked out whole battalions marching along the narrow roads on the Karelian isthmus. They had the groundattack versions of the Stukas, the Junkers JU 87 G/H and some Focke Wulf FW 190 F3 and F8 models for groundattacks, to knock out the first and the last vehicles of the Sovietcolumn. Then it was just shooting fish in a barrel when they took out all the vehicles trapped along the road.
@@gurkslunga All books I've read and the photos on SA-Kuva only indicate D-5 Stukas of I/SG 3 without the cannons. Where did you find info on cannon Stukas?
Thanks for a good video! Your dis-claimer was spot on. You're going to piss off somebody regardless of what you say. I think the most appropriate description of the Finnish position throughout WW2 is "between a rock and a hard place".
I was not listening when you said you were not biased, so now I'm really angry that you are pro woods, you think it's a waste to shoot random shells into a forest! how dare you!
Other than that, nice video :D
Tree lives matter! 🌳
@agl, think again! When autoloadable claims not having listened to something TIK never said, then he is obviously correct.
@@unnamedchannel2202 I mean clearly right ^^ TIK should just stick to trees anyways xD
@agl Well clearly I was not listening then was I haha
As a trans-species being whose gender identity is Burr Oak tree (Quercus macrocarpa - my pronouns are tree/tree-self or just "acorn") I find your violent and hateful comments about forests OFFENSIVE and I WILL be calling the Internet Police to have you arrested, you evil anti-tree fascist!!!!!!
Your sceptiscism of Finnish estimates on soviet numbers makes no sense since who in their right mind would start a full scale offensive not even really outnumbering the enemy? With such a small disparancy as you suggests the Finnish line would have hold. Edit: although on a rethink, humans do lot of dumb shit, so maybe you are right.
hell yea. this was way better than a Q&A
you sure know your history and show it with these great videos,thanks
It's hard not to be biased same as it's easy to fight the war afterwards. There are many ifs one can explain with own bias.
- 1940 Finnish troops were exhausted, but Stalin didn''t know for sure what resources Finland had left after Russia failing so many attacks already. There were no drones in 1940...
- Stalin didn't make decisions alone, since Hitler didn't want to allow Finland to be conquered, because he had other plans for Finland.
- If Finland were willing to participate siege of Leningrad, they would have been able to cause lots of harm to Leningrad supply routes from north. They controlled area far to up Petrozavodsk in eastern Karelia. Mannerheim had working contacts to East and West almost throughout the war.
- Mannerhein knew Russia cannot be be conquered and saw Hitlers failure coming already in June 1942, when Hitler paaid surprise visit to his 75th birthday.
And what comes to TIK analysis, it's pitty that this episode of this terrific battle was made in such hurry and little research. I understand that there is not much English sources, and maybe good so, but your estimation of troops and casualties is pretty light weight and any international estimate is more accurate.
Otherwise TIK, thank you for trying and keep up the good work!
_"Mannerhein knew Russia cannot be be conquered "_
The opposite. He thought the Soviets would crumble, that is why he joined in. When he saw the Germans were no wonder army performing poorly, he pulled back. Even with troops in adjacent Norway the Germans and Finns could not take poorly defended Murmansk. Murmansk was vital as British, then US supplies, came through the port.
"If Finland were willing to participate siege of Leningrad, they would have been able to cause lots of harm to Leningrad supply routes from north."
What Leningrad's supply routes from north? The blockade from Finns was rock and solid. There was no supply routes on Finnish side.
@@AlexK-oh2se not according to your history books, but go figure where Leningrad people got their food. Air supply? Eating their horses? Understand the amounts of food needed during long siege. It was no way air tight. Finns were up in Petrozavodsk and didn't close down to Leningrad even Hitler urged them. War was not just war even those days. Mannerheim had long military history in Russia and knew lots of people there.
@@johnburns4017 Sorry you have some research still to do there preferably from westerns sources. Mannerheim had long history in Soviet army and knew Russia from west to far east having travelled throughout the country during his earlier career in Russian militry. There is no way he underestimated the size and capabilities of Russia.
Finns against Murmansk? Sorry Finland had only handfull of men actually border patrol in north. Well known fact.
@@minsevon6151 As the resident of the city (my grandma miraculously survived the siege) i know the history well. There were almost no a food (the norm was something about 100 grams of a "bread" per a day). No wonder more then million people starved to death (nobody actually know how many), mostly during the first winter of siege. Very little indeed was a supply by air, some few supplies were over Ladoga lake ice. But Germans were much closer to the route, and with significantly greater forces failed to cut it several times. It hard to believe Finns would succeed.
Anyway, the routes were to the west coast of lake. And you say about the east shore, where Finns stopped on Svir river. They barely achieved that goal (it was a part of the joint plans with Germans), but Germans failed to perform their part (we know that from the captured archives). To do German's work Finns had to have much more a military strength. And there is no the way to Leningrad (Saint-Petersburg now) from the east shore.
Lots of speculation about Soviet troop numbers. Wonder how a person judging these events which happened 70 years and who has read two books about the topic thinks that he has the information to come up with a more realistic estimate than eye witnesses.
Thanks TIK, OUTSTANDING CHANNEL. Shout out to Anton & brad
Thanks TIK!
Just a question ... Assuming that the soviet army had manpower issues, could it be that Stalin wanted to knock Finland out of the war so the divisions in that area could be transferred to the German front? (Sorry i don't know much about the context and the events in that year and I was just wondering)
Finland had proposed a conditional surrender.
If Stalin wanted the troops of the Finnish front to fight elsewhere he could have made peace instead of attacking.
There was no such thing as knocking Finland out of the war. There were more and even stronger defense line, Salpa Line built way back were the front would be narrowed by lake Saimaa.
My guess is that Stalin wanted to give it a go but did not insist taking Finland with what ever it takes like with Germany.
The Soviet High command STAVKA had planned five strategic attacks for the summer of 1944. Attack on Finland was one of them. The Red army had around one thousand bombers and attack planes, some 600-800 tanks and armoured pieces, some 5000 to 7000 artillery pieces, 900 rocket launchers and several armies when it began in the early morning of 9th of June 1944.
It is not tribalistic to want to live in a nation that has a Constitution. There is a purpose for countries and just because one is in a country does not necessarily mean that one is going to be aggressive toward their neighbors. When you have countries there is the possibility of moving from one political system to another. If there is a one world system with no countries then the people who rule it will have no hedge to their power and we will all be slaves.. At least now we have an opportunity to fight.
Will there be a video about Winter War?
TIK would you be able od consider making a video (of this sort) about the battle of Warsaw 1920, the level of detail and fought that you put into your videos is somthing that I have never seen before and it is simply amazing! I believe that the battle of Warsaw was very significant to the course that the world has taken and doesnt get much attention if any. I would be very greatful if u done this
I found the list of supporters at the end almost as interesting as the presentation, once I'd started to read them. Jeremy Corbyn leapt out, and was soon followed by No One of Consequence.
Dear TIK you don't have to prove that you are unbiased. We all know that you are one of the very rarest and fewest historians who the reality as it was, not as it has been told is important to you. We all trust you and are thankful to your honest efforts. 👍
Well done Tik!
Hi tik. I was wondering if you could do a video or refer me to German plans for a autumn/winter victory on the Eastern front. Specifically what got me thinking, was did the Germans plan for a winter 41 occupation, thus how could they have been so badly caught off guard by the serve cold weather. Experience from ww1 in 1917/18 should have given plenty of hindsight. Related at this stage, how much were the senior military aware of the plan to starve the Russians in winter 41 and again, did it affect their planning? Thanks
Here is a book from the Soviet perspective written by Colonel and military historian Ilja Mosjtjanski: "Karelskogo Valla" of wich I have read a version translated into swedish and publiced by the SMB the Svenskt Militärhistoriskt Bibliotek. A book club that is run by officers and military historians and experts in Sweden. Colonel Mosjtjanski claims the Soviet numbers were 260.000 men, 7.500 artilleryguns and mortars, 630 tanks, assaultguns and armored vehicles. 60-80% of this force was initially directed towards Viipuri. The 21st army hade 3 armycorps and one fortified region (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelian_Fortified_Region): the 30th armycorps had the 45th, 63rd and 64th guards divisions; the 97th armycorps had the 358th and 381st divisions; the 109th armycorps had the 72nd, 109th and 286th divisions; 22 fortified region and reinforcment units. The 23rd army had two armycorps and one fortified region: 98th armycorps had the 177th, 281st and 372nd divisions; the 115th armycorps had the 10th, 92nd and 142nd divisons; the 17th fortified region and reinforcment units. The Viipuri push was supported by 495 tanks and assaultguns from the Leningradfront. The 21st army had the31st and 260th breaktrough armored regiments, the 185th, 226th and 98th armored regiments ( mainly with T-34/76 tanks); the 396th and 351st guards assaultgunregiments ( with assaultguns ISU-152:s and SU-152:s some captured vehicles wich can be seen in the Parola tankmuseum in Finland btw) and the 1222nd assaultgun and artilleryregiment (with SU-76M:s). In total the 21st army had the support of 157 tanks and assaultguns ( 105 tanks of wich 43 were heavy tanks and 62 medium tanks; 52 assaultguns ( 31 heavy and 21 light ones). The 23rd army had the 46th guardsbreakthrough regiment ( with KV-1 and KV-1S tanks) and the 98th assaultgun and artilleryregiment. The 23rd army was supported by 42 tanks and assaultguns ( 21 heavy tanks and 21 light assaultguns). The bulk of the armor in the Leningrad front ( in total 296 vehicles) were held in reserve. The 1st, 220th, 152nd tankbrigades; the 27th tankregiment; the 26th and the 27th heavy guards breakthrough tankregiments ( 220 tanks: 42 heavy, 90 medium and 68 light tanks) ; 394th and 397th heavy guards assaultgunregiments; 952nd and 1238th assaultgun and artilleryregiments ( with 96 assaultguns 42 heavy and 54 light SU-76M:s). The Soviets had a variety of tanks in this operation: T-26, KV1, KV-1S and Mk4, Churchill III/IV, T-34/76. The 26th and the 27th tankregiments had the new IS-2 heavy tanks. The Soviet infantry units that were unfamiliar with these giant tanks saw a column of IS-2:s moving and mistook them for german Tigers and opned fire. The managed to damage 3 IS-2.s.
Edir: The books name is: Schturm "Karelskogo Valla".It has been fact checked by finnish military historians and tank specialists major Eas Muikku and colonel lieutenant Erkki Käkelä.
Well. Let's be honest, while the Fins didn't have an exit-strategy, neither did they have an entry-strategy either. They were being attacked by a bigger bully and the only way to stop that is to have said bully defeated. That didn't happen (wonder if the Germans ever read the books about Napoleon) but at least the Germans were big enough of a distraction to make focussing on Finland not worth it in the end. Other coutries push the Fins to the wrong side of the divide.
oiSnowy I perfectly agree
Good review of events, thanks 🇬🇧
Hello tik im greatly curious on why I can't find a video on the battle of Moscow if you could please point me n the right direction to find it or if u have yet to create a video yet about Moscow battle please do I would greatly appreciate it and watch it as well as share it thank u
That opinion that certain pro-Soviet and modern day pro-Russian folks sometimes like to throw out that ''Soviets never wanted to fully take over Finland'' really is quite naive and bordering insulting. Because there is more than enough real life evidence of their behavior towards Finland in the context of what they did to Baltic states and Poland that showed they really did want to fully occupy , Finland was together with Baltic states and Eastern Poland included in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as part of ''Soviet sphere'' , meaning USSR deliberately stated to Nazi Germany that they want it for themselves pure and simple. They just failed to get it due to Finnish resistance, that does not change their intentions
@Tom Fury Those ''negationations'' were the same thing they did to Baltic states in 1939, meaning in both cases they requested Soviet military bases on their land (Soviets pushed for Soviet army bases inside Finland as well together with those land requests, something you seemed not to mention). It was later proved to be deliberate move to weaken their defense when Soviets were ready to attack in 1940 (the entire thing was a big Soviet lie and deception). Difference with Finland was that they refused, that was it. Nothing else there was different in Soviet behavior in these 2 cases, so if that behavior led to full occupation and Soviet takeover in Baltics, on what grounds can you say Finland would have ended differently if Finns had accepted the deal just like the Baltics did??
@Tom Fury ''and the deployment of a four-thousand-strong military contingent for its defense.'' - sure sure ''defense'', right. They also ''defended'' Poland and Baltics too that way. It was not for defence. It was offense against those countries. Having 4000 soldiers already inside Finland and close to Helsinki I remind you, would have helped them immensely in the war that they later started.
''if they hadn't pushed back the Finnish border and taken control of the Baltic States, it's unlikely they would have been able to stop the Nazis.'' - lol, sure it was only to defend against Nazis. Soviets killed 22.000 Polish soldiers in Katyn in 1939 and immediately started mass repressions and deportations in Baltic states against its intellectuals and property owners the moment they took them over also to ''defend against Nazis'' I presume (both of those territories were anti-German at the time by the way). No, no they didnt do it to ''defend against Nazis'', they did it because Soviets themselves were selfishy trying to create their own empire and used Nazis as excuse.
@Tom Fury ''although they could have done it easily, because the Finns no longer had a defense.'' - yea they did have defense, Soviets just couldn't afford to push anymore. The ''could have, would have'' is not an argument, their troop movmetns that showed their army did in fact want to go over all of Finland showed reality. They were just slowed down to a crawl and couldn't afford such embarrassment any longer.
And no, what Nazis did or Nazis wanted doesnt justify Soviets violently taking over other countries and horrifically attacking populations there, that is not a excuse or justification, no matter how much Soviet apologists like to pretend it is. Especially since in 1941 when Soviets were doing these crimes and attacks on their neighbors, they were allies with Nazis so that argument has nothing to stand on for that alone. They wanted to do it to Finland as well and the argument ''but muh Nazis'' doesn't have anything to do with it. Your Nazi arguments are a ''separate issue here'' too in that case
@Tom Fury ''I understand your reaction to this, your country was part of the axis and lost'' - lol you really think thats what this was about? And that this was the stakes of that conflict? Who was ''Winner'' and who was ''looser''? God you are delusional
@Tom Fury I am not Finnish
Great video and good summation of the figures versus sources. The battle was a slogging match and no great demonstration of tactical prowess. I do believe the Finns small units tactics were better than the Soviets. The Soviets knew this and so employed more force multipliers to counter this. Hence the greater losses of Soviet tanks, men etc. I suspect that Stalin wanted to see if Finland would be an easy country to capture before the fall of Germany and the subsequent hardening of national borders. It did not work, but gave Finland the necessary push they needed to sue for early exit from the war before they lost even more ground. The Soviets realized Finland would be a tough nut to crack and looking West saw countries that would be easier to conquer, with better resources and with active Communist partisans to assist in the capture. If the Soviets had continued to attack Finland, the size of the country would have swallowed too many Soviet Divisions and slowed the Westward advancement of the Soviets An important battle that contributed to the post war map of Europe more than most realize.
Interesting, thank you Tik.
Do you plan to cover the Winter War '39-'40 at some point?
If Finland would have put Manstein in the game in the fourth quarter, they would have won state.
Hi, I really love your content. Russian is my native language and I can help with the translation. Unfortunately, I don’t have much free time because I study at a German-speaking university. Also, in the last few years, I rarely communicate in English, so I can make some mistakes when I write or speak due to lack of practice.
Good one TIK thanks.
Thank you for an interesting and informative video.👍
Strong Finland💪💪✊👊
"The reason why i dont know have an all knowing picture of what happened is because Im not a God" . If only we all thought like this
Thanks to Vilho Nenonen. Who invented the artillery aim fixing, Finnish artillery was ahead of its time with the accuracy... They still use the same things today what they invented there
Another bit of relevant information would be that Finnish SIGINT was capable of reading most of the lower level soviet radio traffic. This allowed concentrated artillery barrages and air strikes to troops just about to assault.
Another great video. I really liked your analytics of it and especially the comparisons with the other fighting that took place in 1944. And in my opinion (being a Finn) if we discount the option of calling Finns as part of the Axis due to the technicality that they did not sign the pact and at least they can be called 'Axis-aligned' without saying anything wrong or offensive - in my opinion that is. Though i personally won't really disagree with the 'Axis' description as long as it is understood what is meant with it with relation to Finland.
Somewhat interestingly the Finnish military leadership did not believe that the Soviets would launch an offensive against the Finns in 1944. Somewhat for the same reasons why you concluded the Soviets aimed to conquer Finland - the leadership figured that it would be possible to reach negotiated settlement (as there had been an attempt in the spring 1944) and it would not make sense for the Soviets to launch an offensive against the Finns (assuming that is that they had given up conquering all of Finland). So they dismissed aerial reconnaissance and signals intelligence reports all which pointed to an imminent offensive. Then again lack of preparedness was not limited to them. Somewhat telling is that there are multiple records as to how the officers of the Finnish Army Corps HQ that was holding the 'main line' on 10th of June were actually just going to play tennis when the artillery opened up. There were some officers (for example Colonel Valo Nihtilä) who kept ringing and ringing the alarm bells but to no avail.
Also there is a slight problem with the Soviet side which makes the information gathering quite tricky. At least in the versions of Krivosheyev's book (of the Soviet losses) that i have seen the Soviet summer offensive by the Leningrad Front (Vyborg operation) is strictly marked from having lasted from 10th of June to 20th of June. And it is marked as a clear and overwhelming victory. According to his work it seems that after that only Karelian Front advances (Svir-Petrozavodsk operation, June 21 to August 9). In other words if you follow Krivosheyev after capturing Viipuri (on June 20) the Leningrad Front does not fight against the Finns. Yet the 21st, 23rd and 59th Armies of the Leningrad Front kinda seem to be doing that until mid July (all sectors counted). Which is a bit fishy - then again if the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive is split into smaller sections then the failed parts (like the advance from Viipuri towards Virojoki-Lappeenranta line as ordered by STAVKA on 21st of June) can be more easily swept under the carpet.
There was slight error in the map (not related to the battle being described though). One of the Finnish coastal artillery regiments (which were more like coastal defense regiments with coastal infantry components and all) was deployed to the islands in the Bay of Viipuri, however they were not on the island depicted but further out. The city itself was (on 20th of June) held by the unfortunate 20th Brigade. They were rushed from their trenches at the Svir front to the Karelian Isthmus. No active training (only 1 battalion was considered 'battleworthy'), no modern anti-tank weaponry. And by many accounts they had even the ammunition for their artillery and fair share of the smaller guns missing (as troops had been rushed it seems equipment had not been). So there was a relatively fresh and jumpy unit in unfamiliar terrain without any real artillery or anti-tank capability. Facing the Soviet armored spearhead. So they panicked and ran - and it does not seem to have really been a fight, according to current archives just 23 Finnish soldiers died in Viipuri on 20th of June. The badly shaken 20th Brigade was taken out of the front and replaced with 61st Infantry Regiment which held the route directly north of Viipuri.
Also addendum... The Finnish Cavalry Brigade. It was actually a regiment sized unit. Kind of. Thing is that while both the cavalry regiments (Uusimaa Dragoon Regiment and Häme Cavalry Regiment) fought as (mounted, though since horses were needed elsewhere they used bicycles) infantry they still used old cavalry style organization which meant that a cavalry regiment's actual fighting strength was pretty much that of an infantry battalion. Cavalry Brigade had additionally one other (light) infantry battalions in it so overall strength was pretty much equal to a regiment (3 battalions + some supporting units).
I think there was 2-3 fake attacks on the frontline before the actual push and soviets had been doing shenanigans like that for years on that front so i guess the defending officers dismissed the alerts of incoming offensive for that reason (but im just guessing, so dont take my word for it)
HERE IS A LINK TO A RELATED FILM: ua-cam.com/video/VoEN9H383xQ/v-deo.html&pbjreload=101
TIK should see our
military cemeteries of these wars in Finland (95000 about 2,5 % of Finnish population). They are well maintained and respected places. All those Finnish who died in the wars have been archived and information can now be found in open sources.
So you can trust that the archives of the Finns are truthful. On the other hand, the graves of the Russians are on the front and their knowledge has “disappeared” over time - surely the Great Russian will not be able to honestly tell the statistics.
My greatfather was at Summa and Tali and Ihantala. Shell shock for llife, from which my dad told me.
Hello Tik,
URSS strategy in WW2 was focused on QUANTITY not quality.
Every time the western books are writing the number of soviets 150.000 the other part came with an extremely low number for an attacker 60.000, at the end you always believe the URSS story.
When you say ''realistic'' you say URSS version (probably fabricated after the war).
Yes, Finland have beaten URSS troops many times more numerous in 1941 because of their patriotism, knowledge of home terrain and the natural barriers called forests and lakes. So I believe western numbers.
Starting with december 1941 german divisions were never at full strength, for example at battle of Rjev were their strength was at aprox. 50%.
I hope if you will make a video about Rjev battles (where Walter Modell defetead the best russian general Jukov) you will not say that the germans had superiority.
I saw in other videos that you said: in 1942 axis manpower was bigger than URSS because they controlled Ukraine, Belarus etc. Well, if that mean if Japan in WW2 conquered Philippines all philippinos people will gladly join the army of Japan or trying to help Japan's economy? Maybe 1 or 2 percent, but not more than that. In contrary, after conquering a country you have to leave some of your troops there in the hostile territory.
Have a good day
TIK.
As Shakespeare said "The play is the thing."
I love your narratives and videos. I am informed, incited, invited, and thankful for them. First, and foremost, I want to hear about what happened. Your summaries of other people books are awesome.
While many people will disagree with you and grind their own personal axes, and further it is understandable that you'll feel the need to justify your opinions, please do it differently.
People who are criticizing your ideas have their right to their opinions. They may be right, they may be wrong. Maybe you'll learn from them, maybe you won't.
Imagine if you were watching Tora Tora Tora and the director stopped the flick in the middle to discuss details about the debate on the exact location of Enterprise when the planes launched. Most of his audience would be thinking "woah thats a lot of planes" or "will they make it?" Then we get a lecture on geography coordinate systems and their weaknesses before switching back to the planes in flight. It destroys the narrative.
Perhaps another channel or separate videos could be dedicated to helping your defend your process? Or even teaching us how to do it better?
Of course its healthy to say "there are doubts about the accuracy of this". But going on for minutes about it just blows flow of the story.
Your work is outstanding. Don't let the doubters get your down or distract you.
Make some mistakes, we all do. You don't make enough mistake to justify they length of video dedicated to finding them or explaining why they are not!
Soldier on dude!
Fantastic subject!
I like listening to your videos accurate documentation well done
There are some 187,888 lakes in Finland larger than 500 square metres Soviet had no place to manoeuvre, all gaps where is possible to manoeuvre was highly defended. Not in topic of this video Manergeheim line is very short (let say compare to Maginot line in France), all defense are done naturally by Finland country side (plus cold winter that made a lot of damage on soviet vehicles not just Germans were stupid in winter time :) ),
@St. Petersberg Finland have never tried to win these wars (Winter War or Continious War). They have just tried to keep Russians outside when necessary even killing them.
@St. Petersberg what an insecure response to someone who was only talking about Finnish geography and the short length of the Mannerheim line.
@St. Petersberg Ryssä botti?
Also, post WW2, NATO rightly began a massive recruitment program to gather as many former Axis military advisors for their own predicted WW3, which thankfully was restrained to a Proxy-War, but believe me, if it hadn't been for either the Atom bomb and/or fending off the Commentern long before the rest of the world collapsed, we'd have had the Soviet Bear's jaws at our throat long before now. It was mere opportunism, nothing more, that dictated what sources you'd have, but part of it is due to the Soviets completely lacking things like a free press system., and most survivors of the war in Finland wound up able to print things without a political officer looking over their shoulder and ready to send them to a gulag or a concentration camp if the government disapproved, as it turned out.
Talk about the 'forgotten front'. Many Doco's covering the Eastern Front ('41-'45) seriously neglect the northernmost campaign - Army of Norway/ Army Group Norway /AOK Norwegen/ assembled to undertake the initial offensive to capture Petsamo, Kandalaksha, Murmansk and cut off Soviet Russia from the Arctic deep seaport via Unternehmen Silberfuchs (Operation Silver Fox) broken down into 3 smaller offensives.
It appears to me as the Northern equivalent of driving for Baku: undermanned, underequipped, undersupplied troops attempting to reach a number of objectives far too difficult given the terrain, distances, and, of course, the omnipresent Red army.
I'm always and will always be fascinated by alternate scenario's which are popular, but I wonder if a 'proper' Army Group Norway instead of being merely an oversized corps, was an assembly of at least two armies (about 150-000-200,000 men plus vehicles, a Luftflotte and sufficient support from the Kriegsmarine - yes I hear the cries from those who say logistics! logistics! ) and thus how could they have perhaps achieved at least this initial objective with the longer-term goal of reaching Archangelsk.
Well done 💪🏻
Hate to be that guy, but making assumptions based on what’s realistic for a battle and not taking in consideration the huge population the Soviets had compared to the Finns. Probably correct numbers during the battle, but they could replace every man 20 times.