He means that Finland did not start the Continuation War. The Soviets launched large-scale bombing operations on June 25th, followed by artillery bombardment, which they claimed was against German targets only but in fact only hit Finnish targets. The Finnish parliment was just about to reaffirm Finland's neutrality on the same day but the Soviet bombing changed that decision.

Kptlt. Hellmut Neuerbur:
Those Images are far to big for the forum. Could you link them instead please?


Interesting history Finland has.
Always between rocks and hard places.

Ok I resized the photos.
And its very true that Finland has had a long and difficult history, considering that both its Sweden and Russia where fomer owners of Finland. Finnish History in a nutshell: Finland was a part of the Swedish Empire. During the 18th Century two wars between Sweden and Russia, Finland was occupied twice by Russia the first time from 1714 to 1721 and again from 1742 to 1743. Then from 1809 to 1918 Finland was a Grand Duchy of the Russian Empire. Then in 1939 Russia attacked Finland in what is now know as the Winter War. Then after a year of peace with Russia, they attacked Finland a second time in 1941-44 during the Continuation War. At the end of the Continuation War Finland and Russia where at peace, but then Finland went to war to remove any German forces still in Finland which is know as the Lapland War which lasted from 1944 to 1945. What I find really intersting is just the amount of support that Finland recived in its wars agianst Russia not only from other Scandinavina Counties but from Germany,England, The United States and many others.:salute:

Right where the swedes put it.

Most of those troops where from northern parts of Russia and equipped accordingly, some even from Siberia. For exsample the Dolin ski brigade that was complitely annihilated.

I think 1/3 is a more common ratio mentioned in attack, wich the russian exceeded in most places. They had the 1/10 ration and even more in most weapons. Like with circa 7000 tanks and 4000 airplanes still in the end of the war against Finland.

It really makes you rather pathetic when you say, "given those odds the results weren't that amazing".






1941 the attacker was still USSR and the general intent of Finland was to get back what was stolen.

It was USSR that started the WW2 with the general intent to invade Europe and the world.

Actually there have been tens of wars against Russia over the past thousand years. Finlands population has sometimes halfed because of these invasions.
The century that Finland has been officially part of Russia, 1809-1917, was achieved by granting autonomy to Finland. In short, his pact was broken from the Russian side and finally led to the proclamation of Finlands independence and the War of Indepedence.

And yet when the Soviets got their military in shape the situation changed considerably. Also, the average soldiers weren't interested in fighting against Finland, hence partly the low morale of the troops. Finns on the other hand deduce this to about the inferiority of the Soviets.

Personally I can't see anything to be proud about being the ally of the biggest war criminal of recorded history.

Yea because they weren't. When the Soviets had a genuine interest in achieving a goal like, for example, winning the World War, they achieved it. A sideshow like the wars against Finland weren't really that important and served more as a kind of prelude to the real fighting which was to come.

I think if anything the wars that Finland fought against the Soviets only served to keep the World War going on longer then necessary keeping the Holocaust and all the other needles bloodshed continuing longer then necessary. And Finland had it's own concentration camps where Soviet civilians perished by the thousands.

Nope.

With the help of Nazi-Germany Finland wanted to build a Greater Finland. Didn't work out.

lolwat?

OTH, you're lack of knowledge of your own country's history will amaze the generations to come.

PS. I see you still havent taken my advice to consider changing your sources. Please do it as soon as possible.

Your cathing straws.
This is getting ridiculous, you really have to be indoctrinated not to see the inferiority of the Soviets in this war.
Or the whole system actually, compared to western democracy, they ultimately lost.

That would be who?

So it was a only a clever strategy to loose for a few years and need support from allies to start winning later.
And great deception to deploy most of its armed forces against Finland to hide how it wasnt very important.
:hmmm:

Finland didnt start WW2, Finland didnt fight for or against anything but Finland.
Those were the cards dealt to us.
And the people in charge did their best, in the interest of the citizens on Finland, based on the knowledge at that time.

Personally i think you are a snotty prat leeching out of a state that most citizens are proud to be part in contributing and building.

Like what for example? About the Finnish concentration camps? They did exist.

Yes, and nobody has said otherwise. What is your point? :roll:

Just remember that these camps detained the Reds (aka the Communists) at the end of the Finnish Civil War, not in the way many people think concentration camps where used for in Nazi Germany. That and the Soviets where very inferior to the Finns in battle. For instance note the PPHS-41 SMG. This SMG first appered as the PPD-40 which was a Soviet copy of the Finnish SMG which is in the second photo that I posted. The Soviets used its massive number of troops, tanks and planes to try to roll over the Finns, and the Soviets might have used the best troops that they had in that region but not the best equipment or tactics. For example the Soviets used the T-26 instead of tanks like the T-34, using the improper uniforms in winter conditions brown istead of white, ect, ect.
The Soviets greatly underestimated the Finns in there tactics, skill in improvising weapons(Molotov Cocktail named after the Soviet Foreign Minister V.M. Molotov, and the Skipole Knife), and the the greatest weapon the Finns had was the knowing thier own countrys terrain.

I feel sort of like I'm watching an argument between two Americans arguing about our Civil War from different sides, but not having enough information to understand!!!!

Not only where they ill equiped but also poorly led due that the great purge in the 30's eliminated any competent/capable military leadership they had.

HunterICX

Indeed. As further proof of this, just look at the horrifying losses the Red Army took in -41, after Barbarossa. For the same reasons, more or less.