A least we eventually got that radio tower and eventually own it now.
It was absolutely worth to go into WW2.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It was absolutely worth to go into WW2.
No need to, both the Uk and USA Governemnts officialy declared Finland to be in a pact and Alliance with Germany and treated Finland as such.
What you posted is not relavent. Its how the sovereign nations treat Finlands actions that was.
No, they didn't. They didn't consider it as being in alliance with Germany nor did they treat it as if it would have been. The part you selectively quoted from the US embassy history essay makes that clear. The peace treaty on the other hand was written by the Soviets so that doesn't have any value or weight with regards to the UK opinion at all.
"Or use if force IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW"
You can't just ignore half the sentence.
If the Allies forced Germany to a surrender after WW2, that treaty is legitimate, since the war against Germany was defensive and thus not in violation of international law.
If Soviet Russia uses its military might to invade and then force a treaty without justification, that treaty is void.
If it were any other way, there would never be any illegal acts of aggression. The winner could always force the losing side to write a treaty legalizing their actions...
Why are you referring to a charter signed in 1969 and coming into force in 1980 regarding the legality of a treaty signed in 1940?
The League of Nations (established in 1919) ruled in 1939 that the invasion was illegal. If the war is illegal then there can be no treaty arising out of the war, in the favour of the aggressor, that is itself legal unless ruled so by the League. If an aggressor can force a legal peace in their favour on another nation in an illegal war, then the concept of 'illegal' has no meaning. The treaty between the Soviet Union and Finland that ended the Winter War was not a legitimate treaty and the Fins were not under obligation to abide by it.
Allying (or at least performing active military cooperation) with the Nazis is a separate issue, although in Finland's favour they had very little in the way of good options at that point and they were by no means alone in this joining a list of the following European nations:
Romania
Italy
Hungary
Slovakia
Spain
Soviet Union
Yugoslavia (at one point, sort of)
Vichy France
In addition Sweden and Switzerland both cooperated to a degree that was far in excess of simple neutrality.
Some of these nations were punished for their cooperation, others were not. I don't know of any historian that thinks the post-war settlement was fair, but Finland was not treated worse than Romania (whose actions and circumstances were in many ways similar to Finland's) and was better treated than say, Poland.
This is the most awfull crime on hindsight. Only year earlier Soviets and Nazis divided Poland between them. Now there were Nazis in Norway and Soviets had invaded Finland once. Now from perspective of Finland the worst possible outcome would have been that both Soviets and Nazis would use Finland as a battlefield like happened to Poland, not allied on neither party. Had Finland not accepted troops from Nazi Germany there would have been a high change they would have come anyway because Nazis respected only power. Nazis wanted in to invade Soviets from whole lenght of frontline and were fighting against non-optimal enemies like Yugoslavia and Greece. Soviets also had very high intrest to invade trough Finland to Sweden because iron ore was feeding Nazi war machine. Had they done so allies would have not protested because of common intrest.
What Finland did was not only neccesarry but beneficial: everybody expected Soviets to collapse and German to win war. Doing nothing would have not improved position of Finland at all, nor it was realistic (both Norway and Denmark had been neutral and demobilised. Baltic states also had been neutral).
But hey hindsight and moral highground!
And no one thinks that Romania wasnt a nazi ally.
You can argue over whether or not their decisions were justified or not (though in hindsight it is hard to say they were, and that FInland could probably have saved a lot of lives just by staying out of the war, but then again, hindsight is 20/20) but finnish cooperation went far beyond the USSR or Yugoslavia, they actively allowed german troops access to their borders, coordinated offensives with Germany, etc. This way closer cooperation than even the USSR or Spain.
The idea that FInland was somehow forced to start the Continuation War is silly. I sincerely doubt the Soviets would have wanted to open another front for no good reason.
Sure the Soviets would never attack Iran given the dire state they were in August 1941... if they can secure Finland with little effort they would have done, because it is rational thing to do. Therefore Finland have to mobilize, and then they are just one small step from the war.
Lots of countries mobilize all the time. Not all of them invade their neighbours and round up their population into concentration camps where thousands died.
Finland could have stayed out of the war (or fought a defensive war if that became neccessary) heck, they could probably have offered to fight the germans instead and gotten something out of it. They chose not to. I mean, their decisions were understandable given their situation, their frame of mind, etc. But the finns chose to join and participate in a genocidal war. The Winter War was a clear case of self defence fought honourable and with distinction: The Continuation war was a hare-brained irredentist scheme that lead to nothing but hundreds of thousands of dead and sharp restrictions in finnish sovereignty.
I don't think there's any conceivable argument that Finland ended up better off due to the war.
Finland emerged as a more or less democratic country and retained most of its sovereignity. This happened because they convinced the Soviets that they are a tough nut to crack (yes they have to pay and lost Petsamo as a result). Whether the USSR would skip the invasion of Finland is difficult to tell, but since Stalin was an opportunist and declared war on Bulgaria when they arrived to the border and replaced the governments of Poland (fought against the Nazis), Czechoslovakia (cowed to the Nazis), Romania (switched side twice) and Hungary (remained and ally of Nazi Germany) irrespectively of their behavior but only did limited actions in Finland or Yugoslavia shows a clear pattern: not being "liberated" by the Red Army is a good thing.
So option A: the Germans invade the Red Army liberates Finland is worse than IRL
Now let's see option B: uneasy peace with 100.000+ armies facing each other in Karelia, the Finns are economically dependent on Germany, German military units march through Finnland, their Navy visits Finnland regularly. Yet they are denied the modern arms because they are neutral. Now all is hanging on the hopes that the Soviets did not invade the Nazi leaning Finland. Since they did invade Nazi leaning Iran i would not bet my money on that: strategic goal is to disrupt the transport of Swedish iron ore by obtaining submarine bases on the Bothian Gulf. Churchill gonna like that in Teheran.
Not all of the population was rounded up to the camps - not even all of the Russians who lived in the area. You are aware that the Soviets practiced scorched earth policies? Fair share of the people had nothing left to go to after the Soviets had fled. Perhaps they should just have been left to rot in the forests in your opinion? Or should people living where the front line ended up being have been left to live there? Those camps were not there to destroy people but when there is not enough food then there is not enough food, and unless you are a certain biblical person it is fairly difficult to conjure more up from the thin air.
It was the Soviet actions after the Winter War which had already convinced the Finns that another war would be inevitable. Given how the Soviets had invaded, blackmailed the country by withholding agreed food shipments, interfere with Finnish internal politics, openly acted to overthrow the Finnish government, shot down Finnish civilian aircraft. And as a cherry on top Soviets had prevented Finland from linking up with Sweden even when a condition for that linkage was that Finland would never try to reacquire the lost lands (and Finns had actually agreed to that before the Soviets threatened Sweden to prevent the union from taking place). Which made it quite clear to the Finns that Soviet did not want to let Finland stay out of the war even if it had wanted it. On the other had it would have been impossible for the Finnish leadership to get Finland to fight against Germans alongside the Soviets after the Winter War. Given what had taken place both in Karelia as well as in the Baltic states in the Soviet occupation & purges it was the Soviet Union which came across as genocidal thanks to the actions carried out by the USSR.
Soviet had after the Winter War made it clear that they were not satisfied with the result of that war, would not allow Finland to stay neutral, and wanted to subjugate the whole country. The meetings between the Nazis and the Soviets where the Soviets demand that all Germans forces need clear out of Finland in order to give Soviet troops free hands in there make this part abundantly clear since these talks took place after the Winter War. The war we have been primarily discussing - and events like the Weapons Cache Case - convinced them otherwise. Don't get me wrong though - the absolutely best outcome would have been had the Soviets just abandoned their imperialistic fantasies and opted not to invade Finland in the first place in 1939. All the following events between Finland and USSR in the WW II are directly related to that Soviet decision.
Last edited:
Yes. And they could easily have done this without the Continuation War. The Continuation War ended with Finland in a much weaker position than before, with a severly weakened army several hundred thousands of men dead, and large segments of the country destroyed.
It achieved ultimately nothing, save putting Finland in exactly the same situation it already was in: With an army beaten by the Soviets and forced to accept Soviet demands.
Germany invading Finland was never much on the table, and they had to fight the troops the germans could spare for Finland anyway. (even conducting the war would be something of a logistical nightmare, of which the germans admittedly had several) they'd have to go either across the Finnmark (which would be a nightmare) or across the Baltic (with what navy did they have left by 41?)
The options set forth to Finland was not "get occupied by the germans or get occupied by the soviets" it was "stay out of the war or join it." They chose to join, fair enough, they chose to won the losing side, that is just a mistake. (protip: if you join a war, do it on the winning side)
Now, again, from the horizon of Finland in 1940 joining the war made a certain amount of sense (join the winning genocidaires, hope for some scrapts at the victor's table), it's just that in hindsight the made the wrong call. The Continuation War was a massive mistake that the finnish government only managed to clamper out of by the skin of their teeth, and cost hundreds of thousands (upwards of a million on all sides) lives.
If they stay out of the war, they have another hundred thousand soldiers in 1945, where the Soviets are still exhausted from the war, a still extant airforce, and generally better strategic position.
Oh yes, "not everyone was put into camps with horrible living conditions". Much better.
The camps where set up to prepare for the ethnic cleansing of Karelia after a potential peace deal.
Except that the finnish government, like every government, was well aware of what the germans were doing.
Soviets demand that the german troops that would later assist in the invasion of their country clear out? Shocking! The Soviets likely had designs on Finland, but in the period 1941-1945 they were a *tiny* bit busy. And they would in any case at worst have ended up in the same situation: IE. trying to fight enough that they could get away with not being swallowed whole.
Only instead they allied with the nazis (any claim to the opposite is a fiction, and everyone involved knew it, there were german troops in Finland, the germans and finns operated joint taskforces on the lakes, and so forth) started a war they lost, aided the nazi genocide, and generally did nothing at all that made their situation better compared to... Not doing anything.
Like, i could see why someone in 1940 would think joining the war would be a good idea (idiots tried the same in most countries) I cannot see people seirously in 2018 arguing that joining a war alongside the nazis, who, apart from being y'know, nazis, were also the losers of the war, was a good idea.
I mean, even in the worst case scenario, the Soviets DO invade, the situation still isn't any worse than it was in '44-'45 historically.
Here is the map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conti..._of_Finnish_operations_in_Karelia_in_1941.png
What the Finns achieved in 1941 that they occupied the narrowest part of the Karelian Isthmus anchoring their defenses on rivers/lakes. Had they not do it the Red Army could be deployed a much broader front, much closer to Helsinki while Finns would have lacked all the German equipment they got throughout the war.
So it is much worse than it would have been if they did not advance to the former border.
Actually Finnish army was at its strongest after the Soviet summer offensive of 1944 due to the vastly increased equipment levels and quality of that equipment. Which Finland alone could never have achieved in that time and era.
Yet in the end Soviets failed to break through the 'beaten Finnish army' despite of deploying elite Guards units against it. You are aware that the Soviet goals for the offensive were way deeper in Finland than where they were stopped dead in their tracks (quite literally). The sole Soviet units that managed to reach the 1939 borders were driven back and largely destroyed by the Finns in August 1944. Another interesting fact is that the Soviet demands prior to the offensive in the Spring of 1944 were actually harsher than those offered after the Soviet offensive against the Finns had failed.
Three capital ships (battle cruisers and battleships), several cruisers, several dozens of destroyers, several hundreds of various lighter units (M boots, R boots)... Against Finns really didn't have much. However being occupied by the Germans was not really the worry. Issue was that it would have left Finland as a battleground between the war fought by the greater powers. Besides the Soviets had already made it clear that they would not accept Finnish neutrality. Besides there were both Soviet and German troops within Finnish borders - both of which Finns would have been required to place to internment camps, had the neutrality been followed.
Loss of soldiers is unfortunate - however like the comparison to the Baltic states shows the fighting was a far better choice than being trampled over. However they prevented war from being fought among the civilians. Regardless as said before the Finnish army had never been as strong as it was in the later summer of 1944 following the Soviet offensive. Finnish air force was at its peak (of WW II era) in the summer of 1944 because of the aircrafts bought from Germans. Without that option Finns would have had much smaller and poorly equipped air force. Strategicly the situation was about the same both prior and post the war so that part of your argument really makes no sense at all.
Being put to the camps with some level of living conditions would be preferable to death for many. You shouldn't forget that after the food disaster of 1941-42 the living conditions actually increased into being higher than what they had been in the region during the Soviet era before the war.
Which was only planned and would even then have been much smaller than the ethnic cleansing of the Germans carried out apparently legally by the Allies following the WW II. Or did you forget that part. If the Allied (mainly Soviet led) ethnic cleansing was legal - then you should have no problems complaining about what the Finns might have potentially done.
In 1941 that was very doubtful. They however were very keenly aware of what the Soviets had been doing.
Now that is either truly dishonest or then you really have no idea what you are arguing about. What you are forgetting is that at the time Soviets demanded that the Soviets and the Nazis were still allies. Same time when Soviets were still offering Nazis the Basis Nord for example. Problem with the scenario you are outlining is that without the weapon deliveries related to the Winter War (most arrived late and fair share of them were in fact interned by the Germans) which could not later on arrive without the German approval and without the option of buying (for which Finns needed to trade in order to have currency to buy) food and weapons from the Germans Finns would have been far from being as effective as they were in the actual war.
Utter non-sense. Only shows how clueless you are about the situation in Finland both prior and during the WW II. Finland had practically no military industry to speak of so without being able to buy new advanced materials and equipment (like field artillery, AT-guns, Panzerfausts, modern fighters, modern bombers, modern tanks) from Germany Finland would have been in much, much worse situation had it not been involved in the war. Additionally the Soviet attacks would have started from the 1940 border and without having such narrows as what the Karelian Isthmus offered the much more poorly equipped Finnish army in this scenario would have been easily crushed.
Additionally without being involved with the Germans Finns would have not been able to trade for anything with any one. Which is rather horrible situation for a country that was not able to feed its population during the wartime due to the Soviets land-grab and lack of fertilizers. Try to understand that Finland simply had to trade just in order to survive.
Last edited:
This ongoing debate is a good example why you should not argue in internet with strangers.
The end of the offensive had the Soviets in pretty much the same position as after the Winter War. Both sides knew that the finns could not withstand another offensive, hence why the finns cave. (The Soviets, as mentioned, had other more important things to worry about, and the onoly reason they were even launching the offensive was because the finns had attacked them)
All governments knew about the german anti-jewish policies, all governments knew about their actions in Poland. This wasn't hidden.
There is a fair bit of difference between breaking neutrality and outright invading one of the belligerents. And the WINNING belligerent at that. (admittedly they didn't know that at the time) And Finland was actually in a better situation than eg. Sweden.
And the comparison with the Baltic states is weird: Finland had already fought the Soviets successfully. They could do so again if they returned. Attacking the Soviets only made sense if they could win... Which they couldn't.
Yet even then the offensive failed. It didn't start peace overtures, those had began before the offensive. With regards to the peace the only result from the offensive was that the Soviet terms for the peace were made softer addressing exactly the points Finnish side had marked as impossible to fulfill in Spring 1944 discussions.
Anti-jewish policies were not exactly rare in that time and era. And just like governments may have had some inkling as to their actions in Poland they likely also had fairly good inkling of the Soviet actions in Poland as well.
Wrong. Again, if you try to make statements of the topic it wouldn't hurt if you first gather even a rudimentary level knowledge of it. Finland was much worse off than Sweden. Sweden was self-sufficient for most parts. It could survive without outside connections even if it meant scraping the bottom of the barrel to do so. After the Winter War Finland did not have such a luxury - Finland HAD to trade in order to survive. Soviet efforts had made it already before 1941 impossible to think Finland could trade with the Soviets - the blackmailing Soviets tried to do with food shipments made that unthinkable. So unlike Sweden which involved itself with Germans out of convenience Finland had to do so in order to survive.
As to be enforcing neutrality - neither of the two greater powers would have accepted enforcement of neutrality in such a manner and both would have considered it as an act of war. Again the whole mess was caused by the Soviet aggression in 1939 - without that the whole situation could have been avoided.
And the Soviets actions had verified to the Finns that the Soviets would return. However this time there would be no help from Sweden (as Germany was keeping Swedes at full alert) nor would there be any chance of foreign help due to the Nazi-Soviet alliance blocking all access to Finland. This was the situation Finland faced. From all appearance Finland was existing only a borrowed time waiting for the seemingly inevitable Soviet invasion. And no one in Finland had (or have) delusions that Finland could alone appose the Soviets successfully for prolonged period of time. So when the German aid against the Soviets was suggested it was grasped like a lifeline - because it really was such. Finland still wouldn't have gone to war - keep in mind that it was up to the parliament to decide, not for the president, cabinet, or the commander of the armed forces - without the Soviets bombing Finnish civilians on 25 June 1941.