Day of memory Leningrad.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by kranz

I don't get it.
So, were the Finns the good guys when they fought against the Soviets during the Winter War?
Or, were they the good guys when they refused to help Hitler and to help the Soviets?

Of course, my view will be somewhat biased, but here's how I see it:

Winter War: We were the good guys, Soviet Union attacked because we didn't
give them the territory they wanted. It was purely an defensive war from our POV.

Continuation War: Here things get more complex. Finland has always tried to
stay out of offensive war and just defend itself. But, during the CW, Finland
did indeed attack, first to take back the territory we had lost in the peace treaty
after Winter War and then the order was to go a bit further, into Soviet territory
to do what Soviet Union did in WW; establish a buffer zone.

The offensive beyond the territory lost after WW was seen by many as war
of aggression even then and it has been talked a lot in our history ever since.
As for Leningrad, IIRC, the plan was for Germany to secure the southern
area and Finns to secure the northern area, thus making the siege complete.
But Finland refused to continue the offensive war and so the siege was never
complete.

Were we the good guys in CW? Guess that depends on who you ask. If you ask
me, I say yes. We were, like in WW, drawn into the conflict and had no choice,
but to defend ourselves. Keep in mind, Stalin was seeking after conquering
whole of Finland and our fate would have been the same as the Baltian countries.

Anywho, like I said, this might be a biased view point, but that's how I see it.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Dowly

We were, like in WW, drawn into the conflict and had no choice,
but to defend ourselves.

I agree with the rest of your post, but here I must point out that from purely academic point of view the "Driftwood Theory" has been shot down years ago.

[Dowly]

@CCIP

Good post and I agree.

Originally Posted by Hottentot

I agree with the rest of your post, but here I must point out that from purely academic point of view the "Driftwood Theory" has been shot down years ago.

AFAIK, it is still debated. How I've learned to see it (and again, just my opinion)
is that germans attacked SU from Finland, Finland told SU that we are to
remain neutral and take no part in any offensive actions. SU, instead of targeting
airfields etc. bombed population centers and we went to war yet again.

Note: this is from pure memory and I'm a bit drunk, so there might be some errors.
But I still see as Finland being dragged into it.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Dowly

AFAIK, it is still debated. How I've learned to see it (and again, just my opinion)
is that germans attacked SU from Finland, Finland told SU that we are to
remain neutral and take no part in any offensive actions. SU, instead of targeting
airfields etc. bombed population centers and we went to war yet again

I am not specialized in war history, but I am majoring in history for fourth year, so I'm speaking from that basis. As far as I know, the fatalistic "not our fault, we were forced" Driftwood Theory was first questioned by the foreign researchers and later by the Finns too. These days the topic is not so much about if there was to be a war or not, but if we were willing participants with Germany or not.

There are those who say that we tried everything before accepting to side with Germany, for example looking for help from Sweden. When nothing else worked, we took the lesser evil. Then there are those who say that we were happy to side with Germany and it was our first choice.

While it's not black and white anymore than anything else in history, I'm still more inclined to believe in the latter for various reasons.

First of all there is no questioning that we were bitter after the Winter War (and who wouldn't have been?) Even the contemporary people called its peace a temporary one. Germany in 1941 seemed like a powerful ally and offered us a chance for retribution we couldn't have had on our own.

Second, we weren't there just for the old lands. Already after 1917 there had been the ideal of "Greater Finland", and it wasn't just some extremist loonies who supported it. It never came to be in the end, but remembering its existense merits a question: what would have Finland done / tried to do if Germany had won in the East?

Third, ever since its independence Finland had roots with Germany (even if Germany didn't necessarily think the same). The whites had been victorious in the Civil War largely because of the military training the Jägers had received in Germany. After the Civil War some had wanted to turn Finland into monarchy with a German king. While the fervor may have toned down a little in the 1920s and 1930s, it was still just two decades from those years. That's a very short time for any ideals to die.