Separate War -thesis, highlighted by the Finns - not recognized by the World

[Jopa79]

Shortly after the Winter War Finland received information from the German intelligence about the Soviet intentions having still the willingness to occupy Finland. The Finnish President, Risto Ryti noted in his diary: "Finland should stay clear of the Global Showdown". In the picture above, Ryti is on-air broadcast in the radio and speaks to the Finnish people during the outbreak of the Continuation War stating the Finnish collaboration with the Germans, but still noting the Finnish stand-alone role in this new 'Summer War'.

To the start of this thread, Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact, the military alliance and a state contract like the other members of the Axis. A separate -or an unrelated war -thesis is a Finnish proposition and an opinion about the war between Finland and the Soviet Union in 1941-1944. The Finnish vision is that the Continuation War and this theater of war was a separate compared to the German and the Soviet performance elsewhere in the Eastern Front in WWII. In general, this has been the Finnish statement about the course of the events in official and in authoritative contacts.

Also, it's worth of mentioning the Allied attitude in this issue. Just a few years earlier the Western Powers (the US, Great Britain and France) condemned the Soviet invasion of Finland (1939-1940) and they all favored and supported the Finnish war effort. However, all this changed by the outbreak of the Continuation War and in the eyes of the Allied Forces Finland was seen as a hostile nation.

The separate war -thesis was a national issue from the very beginning. In the Finnish statement, as it is named, the Continuation War was experienced as a continuum for the Winter War (1939-1940) and also for the Interim Peace (1940-1941). This opinion the Allies didn't take into account, or this isn't recognized by Global today. The continuous Soviet threat, even in peacetime was wanted to put on a halt in Finnish desires. With the stand-alone -thesis during the early years of the Continuation War the Finns wanted to remain the relations with the West. Also, during the later years, Finland wished to avoid the 'German bandage' and escape the nascent defeat. The Soviet notes are rather unambiguous, stating the Soviet combat against Fascism in the Continuation War and resulting the Democracy in Finland.

Adolf Hitler and Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim in Finland during Mannerheim's 75th Birthday in 1942.

From the outset Mannerheim had been reluctant towards the Finnish-German collaborating. Instead he was constantly seeking for a support or a military alliance with Sweden, Great-Britain or France. In 1941 it was clear, none of these fancied Unions wouldn't take a place, cooperation with the Germans was the only Finnish possibility. Highlighting the stand-alone status, Mannerheim refused the post of chief-in-command of the German 200 000 of troops present in Finland. Mannerheim was only responsible of the Finnish Army operating independently and the Supreme Commander wasn't under German control or authority. One optimal example of this hierarchy is the Mannerheim's refusal during the Siege of Leningrad - not to attack the city despite the German pressure and wishes.

Continually demanding to stop the Finnish acts of war, especially after the Finns reached the 1939 borders the Western Powers grew tired. Winston Churchill sent a letter to Mannerheim personally and expressed the regret at the declaration of war which was coming 6th of December 1941.

Hitler's visit on Mannerheim's 75th Birthday in summer 1942 was a complete surprise. Once in Finnish history research this was experienced as a tribute for the Finnish brothers-in-arms. However, current research is probably correct, stating the true German intentions during this visit were to ensure and bind the Finns to fight to the end alongside Germany as well as placing Finland in aggravating status among the opinion of the anti-Axis countries.

Detachment Kuhlmey and anti-tank weapons for the Finnish Front - result of the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement

Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement is a very significant event when considering the Finnish separate war -thesis. During the Soviet Offensive Phase in 1944 the Finnish lines were nearly collapsing and a devastating end was on the horizon. Finland requested aid from Germany. This agreement is the closest of an military alliance between Finland and Germany which have ever existed. President of Finland, Risto Ryti signed a personal letter for German Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler to not to sign a separate peace with the Soviet Union, instead Finland committed to fight alongside with Germany to the end. For the balance Finland received German weaponry in their fight against the Soviets. This German war support was already en route before signing the Agreement, but still Ribbentrop insisted the Finnish commitment. The German armament and the weaponry which was the result of this agreement proved to be decisive in the Finnish defensive victories in Tali-Ihantala and Äyräpää-Vuosalmi. After these Finnish victories the Soviet pressure settled down and Ryti resigned as president. Now, as a new president Mannerheim experienced the agreement no more valid and Finland was able to sign the separate peace and exit the war.

The Finnish modern-day view of the stand-alone thesis is mixed. It still gets the support, but some of the researchers deny the validness due the close cooperation with Germany. Still, it can be demonstraded that the leadership of Finland stayed tuned for the German proposals, but the decisions were their own and the Finnish Army remained as an independent, executing and operating the orders and the commands - not by the Germans - but authorized by Mannerheim.

 

[XYN]

I always wanted to ask. What does your forum nickname mean?

 

[ramius3443]

Whether or not Western historians accept it or not is debatable (I've read at least one book, Finland's War of Choice, that more or less argues this. Its been awhile though, so maybe it didn't, and I don't remember the author's nationality), but didn't the West more or less diplomatically accept/assume it by never declaring war on Finland/insisting on their indy post war? In very technical, diplomatic terms, it was a "seperate" war.

 

[Jopa79]

Whether or not Western historians accept it or not is debatable (I've read at least one book, Finland's War of Choice, that more or less argues this. Its been awhile though, so maybe it didn't, and I don't remember the author's nationality), but didn't the West more or less diplomatically accept/assume it by never declaring war on Finland/insisting on their indy post war? In very technical, diplomatic terms, it was a "seperate" war.

Here are the nations who declared war to Finland during 1941-1944:

• United Kingdom 1941-12-06
• Canada 1941-12-07
• Australia 1941-12-07
• New Zealand 1941-12-07
• Czechoslovakia 1941-12-16 (in exile)
• Nazi Germany 1944-09-15

Finland declared war only to the Soviet Union (1941-06-25) and Nazi Germany (1945-04-03) but the Soviet Union didn't declare war to Finland. The United States of America cut off the diplomatic relations with Finland, but didn't declare war.

To meet the Soviet peace terms, unconditional surrender was not required in Finland's case, it was the opposite like with Germany's case, so with this in mind Finland was treated separately, which favors the separate war -thesis. On the contrary, during the Paris Peace Treaties in 1947 the Finnish alliance with Germany was recorded as unambiguous.

 

[WandererRTF]

Here are the nations who declared war to Finland during 1941-1944:

• United Kingdom 1941-12-06
• Canada 1941-12-07
• Australia 1941-12-07
• New Zealand 1941-12-07
• Czechoslovakia 1941-12-16 (in exile)

Of which the only direct military action towards Finland consisted of a single bombing run against German controlled port of Petsamo. Which succeeded in sinking a small rum loaded Norwegian coaster (small coastal freighter) and killing few (or just one, can't remember) civilians. All which happened actually several months prior to the declaration of war.

Finland declared war only to the Soviet Union (1941-06-25) and Nazi Germany (1945-04-03) but the Soviet Union didn't declare war to Finland. The United States of America cut off the diplomatic relations with Finland, but didn't declare war.

Actually - to be exact - Finland didn't declare war on either of those. In both cases the parliament found that a state of war existed already hence there was no need to declare war but only accept that it had started. Somewhat IIRC similar manner the government also found in 1954 that no one had bothered to end the state of war between Finland and Germany either - so it was brought to close with little ceremony. I think it came up when new trade connections with Germany were being formed and some one found out that trading with a country we are in war with ain't exactly legal. Though i think there is a demand that peace must be ratified by the parliament and that actually may not have been done. So there is a mild chance that we are still in war with Germany - sorta.

To meet the Soviet peace terms, unconditional surrender was not required in Finland's case, it was the opposite like with Germany's case, so with this in mind Finland was treated separately, which favors the separate war -thesis. On the contrary, during the Paris Peace Treaties in 1947 the Finnish alliance with Germany was recorded as unambiguous.

It actually was, for a time. Before the Soviet summer offensive of 1944 it was not required but during the apex (21st - 23rd June) of the Soviet success with the start of their offensive the Soviets did demand Finland to surrender unconditionally. Which didn't get a positive response - in fact it was a significant factor in precipitating the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement cementing for a time the Finnish link with the Germans. After the Soviet offensive had been stopped and in places even driven back the Soviets dropped the demand for unconditional surrender and actually offered terms softer than those they had prior to the summer offensive of 1944. This actually creates an interesting aspect from which to observe the Soviet offensive of 1944 and what it achieved - after all the Soviet offensive of 1944 only succeeded in making the Soviet terms less harsh in the exact points the Finns had in their response in the spring of 1944 said that were impossible to fulfill.

 

[Jopa79]

Actually - to be exact - Finland didn't declare war on either of those. In both cases the parliament found that a state of war existed already hence there was no need to declare war but only accept that it had started. Somewhat IIRC similar manner the government also found in 1954 that no one had bothered to end the state of war between Finland and Germany either - so it was brought to close with little ceremony. I think it came up when new trade connections with Germany were being formed and some one found out that trading with a country we are in war with ain't exactly legal. Though i think there is a demand that peace must be ratified by the parliament and that actually may not have been done. So there is a mild chance that we are still in war with Germany - sorta.

Fair enough...there was no formal declaration of war from Finland direction for either of these countries (the Soviet Union/Germany). The parliament found, state of war it was, like you said.

It actually was, for a time. Before the Soviet summer offensive of 1944 it was not required but during the apex (21st - 23rd June) of the Soviet success with the start of their offensive the Soviets did demand Finland to surrender unconditionally. Which didn't get a positive response - in fact it was a significant factor in precipitating the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement cementing for a time the Finnish link with the Germans. After the Soviet offensive had been stopped and in places even driven back the Soviets dropped the demand for unconditional surrender and actually offered terms softer than those they had prior to the summer offensive of 1944. This actually creates an interesting aspect from which to observe the Soviet offensive of 1944 and what it achieved - after all the Soviet offensive of 1944 only succeeded in making the Soviet terms less harsh in the exact points the Finns had in their response in the spring of 1944 said that were impossible to fulfill.

Yes. This is correct. I was only talking 'bout the final peaceterms in which there was no claim for the Finnish unconditional surrender. You're right, the first Soviet demands included also the unconditional surrender -section, but after the Finnish defensive victories the terms were toned down.

 

[HuzzButt]

Nope:
Finland joined the Nazis and declared war on the Soviet Union.
(The idea that the offensive declaration of war was in fact "Defensive" falls on it's own incongruity, not to mention that we can add that the whole "We declare war because otherwise the bad guys will kill us" is the go to explanation for anyone not willing to take responsibility for their own actions.)

In terms of national narrative the only country with a more bonkers reinterprentation is China whose claim to Tibet most soundly is based on the Tibetan occupation of southwestern China.

 

[Jopa79]

Nope:
Finland joined the Nazis and declared war on the Soviet Union.
(The idea that the offensive declaration of war was in fact "Defensive" falls on it's own incongruity, not to mention that we can add that the whole "We declare war because otherwise the bad guys will kill us" is the go to explanation for anyone not willing to take responsibility for their own actions.)

Declaration of War is a state declaration to another state by a government, a parliament, an authorized party, or the head of the state. The Finnish head of the state, President Risto Ryti noted in his on-air radio broadcast 25 of June 1941 about a state of war between Finland and the Soviet Union. It was a statement, not a declaration.

Another thing is that an official military alliance never existed between Finland and Germany. It's a latin term, de facto which prevailed between Finland and Germany, meaning the practices which existed, but not recognized by the law.

 

[DarthJF]

Finland prepared for and fought the war together with Germany. "Seperate war" talk is just designed to distance ourselves from the Germans after the fact. Even during the few days of "neutrality" between Barbarossa and start of the Continuation War Finland allowed German airplanes to use our territory for operations against the Soviets. It was anticipated that the Soviets would retaliate and thus give Finland an excuse to join the war "defensively".

 

[WandererRTF]

Finland prepared for and fought the war together with Germany. "Seperate war" talk is just designed to distance ourselves from the Germans after the fact. Even during the few days of "neutrality" between Barbarossa and start of the Continuation War Finland allowed German airplanes to use our territory for operations against the Soviets. It was anticipated that the Soviets would retaliate and thus give Finland an excuse to join the war "defensively".

They did prepare for a war. However if you actually read about the Finnish preparations they were still afraid that the Germans would betray them by selling them off to the Soviets. So it wasn't just preparations for fighting with Germany but something else. Also while it is a fact that Finland fought alongside Germany it is also a fact that the command structures between Finns and Germans were not in any way integrated but fully separate. Sure there were certain subordinated units (like German 163rd Infantry Division, or the Finnish 3rd and 6th Divisions) at a time but that was it. While it may not have been a separate war the Finns were fighting it largely separately from the Germans. There is plenty of discussion of this and the consequences there-off in Lunde's book (Finland's War of Choice).

What Finns allowed was for the Germans to refuel in Finland in accordance to the transit agreement that existed already. Attacking from Finnish airfields on the other hand was not allowed. So a group (~20) of German aircraft flew from East Prussia, bombed their targets near Leningrad (or dropped mines) and then refueled in Finland (Malmi & Utti airfields, IIRC). Finns couldn't really prevent Germans attacking from German airfields and were bound to allow Germans to refuel. On the other hand south of the demarcation line (between Finnish and Germans) there were very few German aircraft. I have read in many places that when the Soviet attack of 25 June started there were grand total of 3 German aircraft south of the demarcation line - and the airfield where they were was not attacked.

The refueling was much smaller violation of the rules than what the Soviets had themselves done in the Winter War when they operated from the independent Estonia. Which was according to the Soviets themselves just fine at the time. So if the Soviets didn't like that then perhaps they ought to have taken a really long look into the mirror. For entering the war Finland on the other did need the Soviets to attack first - not just because of the possibility of declaring a 'defensive war' but also to actually start the state of war in the first place. While the emergency state had continued since the Winter War and gave much power to the executive it didn't allow for entering a war - for that a parliamentary approval was required. And it wouldn't have been there without a direct Soviet attack.

 

[Rubidium]

Finland actively coordinated with Germany in the lead-up to the invasion. They occupied demilitarized areas, agreed to allow German refueling on air strikes and began mobilizing their army all before Barbarossa. If the Soviets hadn't bit then, they would have continued escalating their provocations until they got the war they wanted. End of the day, the Finns chose to hitch their horse to the Axis in the hopes that it would let them recapture what they had lost, and continued to coordinate with them until it was obvious that the Germans were going to lose, at which point they began looking for an exit that would be as painless as possible.

Yes, Finland had its own policy and objectives. So did most of the Axis (Japan, for instance, wasn't even told about Barbarossa ahead of time, and in fact had just signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets). Hitler hadn't wanted Mussolini to get bogged down in a pointless war in Greece, but he didn't control his allies. Most of the Balkan nations began looking for an excuse to jump ship at more or less the same time as Finland did. That didn't change the fact that they all cooperated militarily, or that every Soviet soldier fighting Finland was one that wasn't free to fight against the rest of the Axis.

The "Separate War" thesis is just one of the many attempts that various nations have made to avoid responsibility for their role in World War II (see also: the general inflation in the size and importance of the "Resistance" versus the down-playing of collaborationism, the myth of the "Clean Wehrmacht," various denialisms, etc.). You see similar myths develop with just about any point in just about any country's history that might portray it in a less than flattering light. It's perfectly understandable and hardly unique, but it's still wrong.

 

[WandererRTF]

Finland actively coordinated with Germany in the lead-up to the invasion. They occupied demilitarized areas, agreed to allow German refueling on air strikes and began mobilizing their army all before Barbarossa. If the Soviets hadn't bit then, they would have continued escalating their provocations until they got the war they wanted. End of the day, the Finns chose to hitch their horse to the Axis in the hopes that it would let them recapture what they had lost, and continued to coordinate with them until it was obvious that the Germans were going to lose, at which point they began looking for an exit that would be as painless as possible.

Coordinated to a certain extent. Finns were certainly forewarned of the hostilities - hence the mobilization - but Finns didn't fully trust the Germans. Also there is a catch with the 'occupation' of the demilitarized areas - Finland was (and still even today is - as a reservist my initial wartime posting in case of mobilization was on Åland for example) required according to international treaties to do exactly that in case of a threat of war. As to the refueling, the Germans had the right to do so as part of the transit agreement. Finns certainly hoped that they might regain what the Soviets had stolen but their choice of aligning with the Germans was more like the last resort than an actual plan. The Soviets themselves had twice prevented Finns from linking up with the Sweden during 1940.

That didn't change the fact that they all cooperated militarily, or that every Soviet soldier fighting Finland was one that wasn't free to fight against the rest of the Axis.

Sure. Then again the main reasons behind all that was the unprovoked war of an aggression launched by the Soviets against Finland in 1939 and the actions taken by the Soviets after that. It is also worth keeping in mind that the Soviet aggression against Finland had not stopped to the end of the Winter War but instead continued. Even to an extent that by late summer of 1940 British, German and Finnish observers were seriously expecting the Soviets to launch a renewed invasion against Finland due to sizable Soviet troop movements into the Karelia bordering Finland (Finland was on the verge of mobilizing). At which time the Germans offered a branch to the Finns promising weapon trading for troop transit rights - for Finns there now was two options, either succumb to new Soviet invasion or take German boots into Finland. The simple equation was that the more German boots there were in Finland the less likely it was for the Soviets to invade. And that again was only due to the Soviets themselves.

 

[Arilou]

Coordinated to a certain extent. Finns were certainly forewarned of the hostilities - hence the mobilization - but Finns didn't fully trust the Germans.

It was more than just forewarning, finnish officers had been present during planning sessions and generally kept up to date on the german plans.

The finnish government was not a german puppet, but then again, neither were (at the time) Hungary or Romania. Or Italy for that matter. And they certainly have more claim to being a german ally than the Japanese. (who weren't even told and didn't coordinate much at all)

The separate war thesis is fairly bunkum for one simple reason: There is no way Finland would have restarted the war against the USSR without the german invasion.

EDIT: Once the war actually started cooperation was of course even more extensive, German troops operated out of finnish territory (including einzatsgruppen) and in close cooperation with finnish troops. That's just not something that happens if you're not allies.

 

[Henry IX]

World war 2 was a series of overlapping and related conflicts. Germany never took military action against the Chinese, Japan didn't attack the Soviet Union, Britain didn't attack Finland, none the less all of these nations were involved in the war. Finland was a friendly co-belligerent with Germany and undoubtedly took part in Barbarossa and subsequent engagements on the Eastern Front. While it was in the anomalous situation of being a western style democracy fighting on the same side as the Fascists and it never signed up to the political agenda of the Axis, it was not fighting a separate conflict.

 

[User29]

I know this may sound crude, but I think for those of us who see this as a pretty clear case that functionally Finland was an ally and in a conscious alliance with the Germans this isn't us calling Finland Nazi sympathizers or anything of the like. Finland was just fighting what it saw as it's natural enemy in a time they feared for their very political existence, I strongly believe they colluded and it's not very ambiguous but I harbor no ill will towards the nation, realpolitik was the issue of the day, not genocide or erasing the soviet union or even erasing communism.

I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of people who think Finland allied with Germany would think similarly along these lines. Historians tend not to damn war parties out of hand, there's a lot of wars in history with a lot of reasons.

 

[WandererRTF]

It was more than just forewarning, finnish officers had been present during planning sessions and generally kept up to date on the german plans.

Yes, and no. Finns were well aware that the Germans intended to launch an attack on the USSR. And indeed some officers were present in some of the planning sessions. However Finns were outside of the German chain of command and were not actually told when exactly the war would start. There was a great fear in Finland at the time that the thing might also be a smokescreen to get Finns to commit first (by moving troops to Åland for example) and then claiming Finland would have committed treaty violations by both the Soviets and the Nazis. Leading in essence to both parties carving up the Finland between them. Which was what i referred to.

EDIT: Once the war actually started cooperation was of course even more extensive, German troops operated out of finnish territory (including einzatsgruppen) and in close cooperation with finnish troops. That's just not something that happens if you're not allies.

Well - on Finnish territory but not in the Finnish zone of control. On military side Finland was split into two halves, northern one controlled on by Germans and southern one controlled by Finns. Demarcation line run roughly at the Oulu-Kuhmo line. What the German military did in the northern half was out of the Finnish control.

World war 2 was a series of overlapping and related conflicts. Germany never took military action against the Chinese, Japan didn't attack the Soviet Union, Britain didn't attack Finland, none the less all of these nations were involved in the war. Finland was a friendly co-belligerent with Germany and undoubtedly took part in Barbarossa and subsequent engagements on the Eastern Front. While it was in the anomalous situation of being a western style democracy fighting on the same side as the Fascists and it never signed up to the political agenda of the Axis, it was not fighting a separate conflict.

Britain did attack Finland! They bombed it! Really, they did, honestly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_EF_(1941) - the Petsamo part of the mission managed to sink a small Norwegian coastal steamer loaded with rum and kill 3 or 4 people on the ground. And wounding 4 Finnish civilians. Ok, maybe that shouldn't count since it even happened prior to the declaration of war by the UK and was aimed at German controlled port. On the practical side the main effect of the declaration of war was that the UK interned the Finnish civilians (mainly sailors, most of whom spent 1941-44 on the Isle of Man) and took over the Finnish civilian ships in UK ports - USA also interned the Finnish ships AFAIK turning them over to the UK but let the crews roam free.

I know this may sound crude, but I think for those of us who see this as a pretty clear case that functionally Finland was an ally and in a conscious alliance with the Germans this isn't us calling Finland Nazi sympathizers or anything of the like. Finland was just fighting what it saw as it's natural enemy in a time they feared for their very political existence, I strongly believe they colluded and it's not very ambiguous but I harbor no ill will towards the nation, realpolitik was the issue of the day, not genocide or erasing the soviet union or even erasing communism.

I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of people who think Finland allied with Germany would think similarly along these lines. Historians tend not to damn war parties out of hand, there's a lot of wars in history with a lot of reasons.

Just to note the Finnish and German term for the cooperation was generally that they were 'brothers-in-arms'. This is not to say that they would not have been fighting together against the Soviets but mainly to indicate that there were no actual agreements on that. Some people see that as an attempt to deny that Finns would have been fighting functionally as an ally to the Germans - it really is not. It is mainly a denotation that on the legal side there was no alliance between Finland and Germany.

Also Finns knew of the Soviet purges which had been carried out - they were not merely concerned of their 'political existence' but of their existence at all. The Soviet purges seem to have been ethnically targeted in the areas near Finland: http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article255e.htm

If we relate the 1948 figure presented above to the total numbers, we find that the possibility of being the victim of the terror was higher for the Finns than for any other nationality group in Karelia. In relation to the Russian population in 1937-1938, 1.1 % of that specific nationality group was arrested. For the Karelian group the ratio was 2.5 %, but for the Finns it was as high as 17.0 %. Thus, the possibility of the Finns being terrorized was at least seventeen times higher than that for the Russians... ...The total number of Finns killed in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist rule might even climb to 25,000-30,000, which is more than the number of Finns killed in the Winter War of 1939-1940 between Finland and the Soviet Union.

 

[Arilou]

Well - on Finnish territory but not in the Finnish zone of control. On military side Finland was split into two halves, northern one controlled on by Germans and southern one controlled by Finns. Demarcation line run roughly at the Oulu-Kuhmo line. What the German military did in the northern half was out of the Finnish control.

They literally let german troops have their own "zone of control" in finnish territory. That is *extensive* cooperation.

There were also german troops in the south, and finnish units were attached to the german command in the North, not just operating alongside them or with a separate chain of command. (likewise german units were attached to finnish command structure)

There was no clear separation between "finnish" and german zones of operation: There were finnish troops attached to the northern theatre and german troops attached to the karelian other areas. The chains of command were overlapping (with german divisons being attached to finnish corps and finnish units being attached to german armies)

This wasn't a separate war like say, the swedish and russian concurrent wars against the Commonwealth during the Deluge. The cooperation was for more extensive than for instance the Soviet-german cooperation in partitioning Poland.

 

[WandererRTF]

They literally let german troops have their own "zone of control" in finnish territory. That is *extensive* cooperation.

Only on the military side. The civilian side was fully Finnish.

There was no clear separation between "finnish" and german zones of operation: There were finnish troops attached to the northern theatre and german troops attached to the karelian other areas. The chains of command were overlapping (with german divisons being attached to finnish corps and finnish units being attached to german armies)

Actually the separation between the zones was clear. There just were subordinated units. German 163rd Division (or parts of it) were under Finnish command while Finnish 3rd and 6th Divisions were under German command in 1941. What i mean by this is that north of the line it was the Germans who called the shots - or thought they did (Finnish command did secretly intervene to halt the advance towards Murmansk railroad). On the other hand Germans had no say on what the Finns were doing in their own zone.

Also the Germans had already since summer of 1940 planned for taking control over the northern Finland. Irrespective of the Finnish cooperation or opposition i might add.