Day of memory Leningrad.

[CCIP]

This isn't even about Stalin, or the Soviet authority. Soviet authorities let the city down, they did very little in its defense and corruption, misappropriation of resources, and political repression was rife even at the height of the starvation. The only people that deserve credit for holding the line are the brave soldiers and civilians on the front line. This was their victory, not Stalin's, and the prize was not conquest but the life of the whole city, and that's that.

The Finns' role is something that even I continue to be conflicted about. I think there's no question that if they didn't stop on the Svir, the siege would have ended badly. It was a choice, and they certainly did make a bold one. At the same time, they were no angels - and who could blame them? They were attacked rather viciously by Stalin just a year and a half earlier. But I think the Finnish military does need to own up to having some role in maintaining this siege, which by all accounts was a horrible war atrocity, perhaps the biggest ever committed on a single location (we're talking up to 2 million dead, most by starvation). Of course this wasn't their goal and I can hardly see Finnish military leaders wanting to kill every Russian in Leningrad, but those deaths are, in part, a consequence of their choices. As is the fact that the siege was never complete.

Fighting was not nice on the Finnish side of the line, either. Even if they stopped their advance, it was by no means a ceasefire, but a brutal war. My family got a taste of that - my great-grandfather (a Leningrad native, mostly of German heritage, and an engineering officer) fought on the northern side of the blockade. Didn't participate in the Winter War nor anything to do with occupation of Finnish territory. Sniper shot him in the leg out in the open, specifically to attract other 'targets' to his aid. It was many hours before he was rescued, losing his leg as a result. Yet another reason that Finnish snipers are not something to mess with. So, not a nice war on a personal level - but that's the reality of war for you. In the end, I think all sides need to forgive and learn their lessons.

Speaking of which, let's not forget today is also Auschwitz day.

[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.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by CCIP

This isn't even about Stalin, or the Soviet authority. Soviet authorities let the city down, they did very little in its defense and corruption, misappropriation of resources, and political repression was rife even at the height of the starvation. The only people that deserve credit for holding the line are the brave soldiers and civilians on the front line. This was their victory, not Stalin's, and the prize was not conquest but the life of the whole city, and that's that.

The Finns' role is something that even I continue to be conflicted about. I think there's no question that if they didn't stop on the Svir, the siege would have ended badly. It was a choice, and they certainly did make a bold one. At the same time, they were no angels - and who could blame them? They were attacked rather viciously by Stalin just a year and a half earlier. But I think the Finnish military does need to own up to having some role in maintaining this siege, which by all accounts was a horrible war atrocity, perhaps the biggest ever committed on a single location (we're talking up to 2 million dead, most by starvation). Of course this wasn't their goal and I can hardly see Finnish military leaders wanting to kill every Russian in Leningrad, but those deaths are, in part, a consequence of their choices. As is the fact that the siege was never complete.

Fighting was not nice on the Finnish side of the line, either. Even if they stopped their advance, it was by no means a ceasefire, but a brutal war. My family got a taste of that - my great-grandfather (a Leningrad native, mostly of German heritage, and an engineering officer) fought on the northern side of the blockade. Didn't participate in the Winter War nor anything to do with occupation of Finnish territory. Sniper shot him in the leg out in the open, specifically to attract other 'targets' to his aid. It was many hours before he was rescued, losing his leg as a result. Yet another reason that Finnish snipers are not something to mess with. So, not a nice war on a personal level - but that's the reality of war for you. In the end, I think all sides need to forgive and learn their lessons.

Speaking of which, let's not forget today is also Auschwitz day.

I kinda trashed Stalin, and meant not to take away from the brave Russians who resisted.

I think it was my way of saying history is written by the victor, and all of us have blood on our hands, and none of us are "noble" (countrywise)

Hats off to the induviduals who fought on both sides, who had little to gain either way from this conflict.

I am sorry CCIP if it seemed I was bashing the brave men on their tribute thread. I was simply showing how the victors mandate can be a heroic stand or a massacre, the difference between a purge and a holocaust.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Did he ever record any of his stories? I'd love to hear about them if he did and you're willing to share.

He never actually recorded them or wrote them down but he did speak of his personal experiences and left me his wartime papers (which I have discussed, shared and copied to Sailor Steve).

[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.