What is worth fighting for

[Zep]

So you, yourself say. Enjoy the freedom to say so, as provided, and kept, by men better than yourself?

Yes. Men like my father. He was in the RAAF but never fired a shot in anger. Instead, he and his fellow crew-members helped fly back to Australia the more invalided prisoners from Changi prison in Singapore, all sufferers from the Burma railway and other notable horrors. Even now, he rarely mentions this part of his war effort.

Or my aunt, mentioned above. She was a young Red Cross official with the US troops who liberated some of the concentration camps. That situation was just mind-boggling for a young woman, and also, she told us, the young GI's. She was made responsible along with many others for getting these people back to their homes, reuniting families, documenting dead family members, etc. She was subsequently given civilian honours for her work, which we found out about a few years ago when she wrote up her memoirs.

 

[Giz]

Yes. Men like my father. He was in the RAAF but never fired a shot in anger. Instead, he and his fellow crew-members helped fly back to Australia the more invalided prisoners from Changi prison in Singapore, all sufferers from the Burma railway and other notable horrors. Even now, he rarely mentions this part of his war effort.

Or my aunt, mentioned above. She was a young Red Cross official with the US troops who liberated some of the concentration camps. That situation was just mind-boggling for a young woman, and also, she told us, the young GI's. She was made responsible along with many others for getting these people back to their homes, reuniting families, documenting dead family members, etc. She was subsequently given civilian honours for her work, which we found out about a few years ago when she wrote up her memoirs.

But the free world would not have been saved if everyone had been as morally precious... would not the morally correct thing to do be to let the state determines your aptitudes and then assign you appropriately (combat, corpsman, merchant navy whatever)?

 

[bigred]

it's a fallacy to believe I would actually support each and every conflict in the past or the future.

....nor would anyone else here I'm sure, and wasn't the question anyway, or even close. ??

Basically I think we're more or less in violent agreement.

PS I'd like to thank everyone who didn't digress this into yet another "red vs blue" pile of BS.

 

[LW]

I know I'm probably speaking way out of turn here, but that was his own choice and I totally respect him and all his comrades for it. But it would not be my choice. If he valued his life and the life of his family more than his country, then he might possibly have moved somewhere else.

Somewhere else? I wonder which country could have taken about half a million Finnish refugees in October - November 1939. (This figure is my estimate on the number of people belonging to families of members of Suojeluskunta or members of political parties and as such it shouldn't be considered to be especially accurate.) Remember what trouble the ~300,000 Jews who emigrated from Germany had in finding new home contries and they had the advantage of doing it during peace time. Or are you suggestingthat he should have fled alone and left his friends face Soviet execution? I thought you included "lives of your friends" among the worthy causes to fight for.

And what do you do when you run out of places that are "somewhere else"? If no one opposes the aggressor, why do you suppose that he is content in taking just your home country? Most of the ~38,000 Jews who fled to Western European countries before war were killed by Nazis after their countries of refuge were overrun in 1940.

In his shoes, I would see no value to myself, my family or Finland being another dead body frozen in the snow. I could not have defended any of them in that condition.

And you would have had even less change of defending them if you waited until an armed squad surrounded your farmhouse in the middle of a night and came to take you away.

If most Finnish men had thought as you do, the probabilities are that far more Finns would have died than died in war. Just look at the figures for Estonian population losses. The figures for occupation before Operation Barbarossa include:

Executed or tortured to death: 7450
Died in labor camps or exile: 5700
Died in labor service: 930

That's a total of 14,080 deaths directly attributable to Soviet terror. It means that 1.2% of Estonians were killed in one year of occupation. Contrast this to the 22,800 Finnish war deaths that makes 0.6% of the population. Proportionally, this was less than the number of just the executions in Estonia.

If you add in the deaths of Estonians forced into Red Army (21,470, and the Red Army didn't have any options for being an objector), those who went MIA while in Red Army (2,000), those died during the German attack (1,750), and those who simply vanished without a trace (1,101), you find that a total of ~42,000 deaths can be attributed to the annexation by Soviet Union in time frame between June 1940 - September 1944. That is slightly less than half of all Finnish war deaths (~94,000) in a country whose population was less than a third of Finnish population. And then you might want to add in the ~20,000 Estonian deaths that happened after the "liberation" of 1944, the non-resistance option seems even less appealing.

In short, if Finland had submitted to Soviet terror and if she had suffered proportionally as many deaths as Estonians suffered, then ~200,000 Finns would have died, almost 10 times as many as died in Winter War and over two times the total death toll that she suffered in all three wars of the period (Winter War 1939-40, Continuation War 41-44, Lappland War 44-45).

Not to mention that we avoided living 50 years under Soviet rule .

Above, you described in detail the lead-up to the Soviet-Finnish campaign, and I noted a number of points where you indicated that if something had been different then it could possibly not have occured. Do you think the people on the ground at the time would have been aware of those points too?

The only obvious thing that Finland could have done to avoid war would have been to accept the Soviet demands. Just like Estonia did (they didn't have any other real options, the Estonian army was 15,000 strong, far too small to offer more than a token resistance). When you look how Estonians fared after that, you might come to the conclusion that it was not a winning bet, either.

The Soviets obviously had more options but the problem is that their leaders decided to cut off negotiations and start the war. And after that decision there was nothing that Finnish leaders could do to avert the war.

 

[a_unique_person]

But the free world would not have been saved if everyone had been as morally precious... would not the morally correct thing to do be to let the state determines your aptitudes and then assign you appropriately (combat, corpsman, merchant navy whatever)?

I read a book 'on killing' that addresses exactly this issue. Most participants in the wars didn't actually like shooting and killing. The army had to go out of it's way to turn them into killers. If they did kill someone, many never got over it. Zeps father sounds pretty par for the course.

 

[Giz]

I read a book 'on killing' that addresses exactly this issue. Most participants in the wars didn't actually like shooting and killing. The army had to go out of it's way to turn them into killers. If they did kill someone, many never got over it. Zeps father sounds pretty par for the course.

Absolutely. But this isn't about the easy choice. It's about the moral choice. As in a necessary (lesser of two) evil(s).

 

[Zep]

But the free world would not have been saved if everyone had been as morally precious... would not the morally correct thing to do be to let the state determines your aptitudes and then assign you appropriately (combat, corpsman, merchant navy whatever)?

That's hardly the description of a "free" nation, then, is it. Incidentally, they do exactly this in North Korea (state-initiated military empressment) and it seems to be one of many reasons why the rest of the world does not like their style of government. And I doubt you would convince your fellow countrymen to go along with it either.

 

[Zep]

Somewhere else? I wonder which country could have taken about half a million Finnish refugees in October - November 1939. (This figure is my estimate on the number of people belonging to families of members of Suojeluskunta or members of political parties and as such it shouldn't be considered to be especially accurate.) Remember what trouble the ~300,000 Jews who emigrated from Germany had in finding new home contries and they had the advantage of doing it during peace time. Or are you suggestingthat he should have fled alone and left his friends face Soviet execution? I thought you included "lives of your friends" among the worthy causes to fight for.

You asked me what I would do, and I told you in all honesty. And I gave my honest reasons why. But that's for me, not all Finns then, or at any other time, nor for any other country. I also said that I did not berate anyone else who was forced into armed defense by circumstances, or who chose to fight. So I think you may be confusing my personal response as being some sort of recommendation for a tribal or national response.

And what do you do when you run out of places that are "somewhere else"? If no one opposes the aggressor, why do you suppose that he is content in taking just your home country? Most of the ~38,000 Jews who fled to Western European countries before war were killed by Nazis after their countries of refuge were overrun in 1940.

Hold on a sec right there! My question goes to the first point here: WHY is that other country now becoming an aggressor in the first place? Did someone say something wrong? NOT say something right? Did they all of a sudden take Angry Pills and somehow instantly arm themselves to the teeth and invade all in a few days? Prior to this invasion, didn't anyone notice the problem building up?

And you would have had even less change of defending them if you waited until an armed squad surrounded your farmhouse in the middle of a night and came to take you away.

Overdramatisation, and a fallacy of excluded middle: There would have been many options besides just the ones presented.

If most Finnish men had thought as you do, the probabilities are that far more Finns would have died than died in war. Just look at the figures for Estonian population losses. The figures for occupation before Operation Barbarossa include:

Executed or tortured to death: 7450
Died in labor camps or exile: 5700
Died in labor service: 930

That's a total of 14,080 deaths directly attributable to Soviet terror. It means that 1.2% of Estonians were killed in one year of occupation. Contrast this to the 22,800 Finnish war deaths that makes 0.6% of the population. Proportionally, this was less than the number of just the executions in Estonia.

If you add in the deaths of Estonians forced into Red Army (21,470, and the Red Army didn't have any options for being an objector), those who went MIA while in Red Army (2,000), those died during the German attack (1,750), and those who simply vanished without a trace (1,101), you find that a total of ~42,000 deaths can be attributed to the annexation by Soviet Union in time frame between June 1940 - September 1944. That is slightly less than half of all Finnish war deaths (~94,000) in a country whose population was less than a third of Finnish population. And then you might want to add in the ~20,000 Estonian deaths that happened after the "liberation" of 1944, the non-resistance option seems even less appealing.

In short, if Finland had submitted to Soviet terror and if she had suffered proportionally as many deaths as Estonians suffered, then ~200,000 Finns would have died, almost 10 times as many as died in Winter War and over two times the total death toll that she suffered in all three wars of the period (Winter War 1939-40, Continuation War 41-44, Lappland War 44-45).

Of course, there's also the issue that Estonia could be reached easily from the Soviet Union across less rugged terrain for longer in the year. And it was almost completely surrounded by Soviet soil. Whereas Finland was only accessible across rugged terrain under worse conditions, and they were not surrounded by Soviet soil. Plus the Soviets tried to invade Finland in winter - always a foolish move, I would imagine. In short, the comparison of numbers is rather misleading.

And any sentence that starts "If all people thought as you do..." usually leads to an exaggeration or a generalisation, or both. Alas, I believe you have. Nothing was that simple then. Not everything was clearly "either-or".

Not to mention that we avoided living 50 years under Soviet rule .

A distinct bonus, I agree!

The only obvious thing that Finland could have done to avoid war would have been to accept the Soviet demands. Just like Estonia did (they didn't have any other real options, the Estonian army was 15,000 strong, far too small to offer more than a token resistance). When you look how Estonians fared after that, you might come to the conclusion that it was not a winning bet, either.

If I now asked you for the UNobvious things that Finland could have been done and you supply some, then it was clearly NOT "the only thing that Finland could have done". So do you have any unobvious options?

The Soviets obviously had more options but the problem is that their leaders decided to cut off negotiations and start the war. And after that decision there was nothing that Finnish leaders could do to avert the war.

Again, my question: WHY did the Soviets suddenly cut off negotiations and start a war? If they were just stark raving mad Soviets, why did they even start with negotiations in the first place? Why didn't they just invade straight off and be done with it? And if they were bonkers, why did Finland humour them?

 

[Zep]

I read a book 'on killing' that addresses exactly this issue. Most participants in the wars didn't actually like shooting and killing. The army had to go out of it's way to turn them into killers. If they did kill someone, many never got over it. Zeps father sounds pretty par for the course.

Of all the returned soldiers I have met or read about who served in the front line in wars or military actions, very very few have anything positive to say about war as a desirable "solution" to anything. Most of them would much rather talk about family or work or The Depression or whatever - anything but "what they did in the war".

Incidentally, my father was a volunteer straight out of school. He DID choose to fight.

 

[Zep]

Absolutely. But this isn't about the easy choice. It's about the moral choice. As in a necessary (lesser of two) evil(s).

No, it's about the choice of a whole range of lesser of evils. It isn't all white-black, good-bad.

 

[Wire]

Originally posted by Zep
Again, my question: WHY did the Soviets suddenly cut off negotiations and start a war? If they were just stark raving mad Soviets, why did they even start with negotiations in the first place? Why didn't they just invade straight off and be done with it? And if they were bonkers, why did Finland humour them?

Because they like killing and destroying and probably thought that negotiations take too much time before they can start doing it.

 

[LW]

You asked me what I would do, and I told you in all honesty. And I gave my honest reasons why.

OK. And you wouldn't be the only one to make the choice.

But it would also imply leaving those friends and relatives who, for a reason or another, didn't want to leave their homes to their fate.

Hold on a sec right there! My question goes to the first point here: WHY is that other country now becoming an aggressor in the first place?

In this particular case the other country was Soviet Union. One of their political doctrines was World Revolution where the whole world will become a socialist paradise when they help the oppressed workers of the other countries to cast their shackles.

The two main reasons why Soviet Union didn't actually get seriously in the world revolution business were:

1) done in large scale it would have provoked a war against pretty much every other country in existence; and

2) Stalin preferred to consolidate his internal rule.

Now, given that Sovien Union had the official policy of extending the Soviet rule over all countries, do you think that they wouldn't have tried apply that if they could have done it without risking a major war?

So, when you flee to the neighbouring countries, you rely that someone else is willing to fight against the Red Army.

Prior to this invasion, didn't anyone notice the problem building up?

Sure as hell they noticed. They noticed that the Communist party throughly purged its Karelian branch in 1937: only three or four notable party workers with Finnish or Karelian origins survived it. Those who were accused publically were sentenced mostly for "Finnish nationalism" and "spying for Finland and other Western countries". Definitely a bad sign.

They also noticed that the Red Army was expanding quickly. For example, K. Kurko's Puna-armeija nykyhetkellä, 1938, notes that the Red Army had increased the number of its divisions from 81 to 92 during the three previous years. Another bad sign.

But still, up to November 26, 1939 most Finns believed that the war could be avoided.

There would have been many options besides just the ones presented.

Please enumerate.

In short, the comparison of numbers is rather misleading.

In case you didn't notice, the Estonian deaths were not caused by a war. There was no war between Estonia and Soviet Union in 1940-1. The events that led to Soviet terror in Estonia went as follows:

- In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union demanded in negotiations that Estonia allows Red Army to establish military bases in Estonian territory. They agreed to do so because they were not in a position to say "no".

- In June 1940 (when the attention of the world was in the fall of France), Soviet Union claimed that Estonia had breached the treaty and occupied the country. This was easily done by the 100,000 Red Army soldiers who were positioned in the bases.

- In July 1940 the Soviets held a referendum where 96% of the Estonian people voluntarily voted to join the Soviet Union. To ensure that the voting was fair, the Red Army posted armed guards at all voting locations to prevent fascist agitators from interfering the business.

The same thing happened in Latvia.

The same thing happened in Liethuania.

The first step of this process happened also in Finland. And we also got to see what the Soviet response was for not giving bases for Red Army: a war. So, we have examples for both countries that caved in the front of the demands and not, and see what the results were for both options.

The result that Estonia had for the caving was a peace-time terror that killed proportionally more people than the war killed in Finland.

If I now asked you for the UNobvious things that Finland could have been done and you supply some, then it was clearly NOT "the only thing that Finland could have done". So do you have any unobvious options?

Well, Finland could have tried to improve relations with Soviet Union, for example, by signing a non-aggression pact that forbids all offensive actions between the parties. Oh, wait, we did that in 1934. And it was a 10-year one with "no option for cancelling the treaty until it runs out".

Or we could have appelead to the League of Nations. Well, we tried that too, didn't help.

Or perhaps we could have asked Germany to guarantee our safety? Well, when Hitler made the pact with Stalin he explicitly gave him free hands with Baltic states and Finland.

What about guarantees from UK and France? They worked very well for Poland and Checkoslovakia, didn't they?

There were two main reasons fror the mutual distrust between Finland and Soviet Union:

- Finland was a part of Russia for 100 years. Czar Nicholas II managed to alienate a large part of Finns by his pan-Slavic policies that aimed (among other things) to dissolvement of Finland as a separate entity. Also, Finns were aware of the Lenin's comment regarding to new independent countries that separated from Russia: "Let them go, they will come back". So, there was a real fear that the Soviet Union would one day try to annex Finland.

- The Finnish Civil War of 1918. The Reds lost the war and a large number of them fled to Soviet Russia. Throughout the 20s they plotted for a revance but in the end they failed to get the Soviet government to offer real military backing for the operation. But their activities were known in Finland. The Civil War also gave the Soviets a reason for concern: the German division that landed in Southern Finland had been a serious threat for Soviet rule in Petrograd, and they were worried that it would happen again. Also, a number of Finnish volunteers had participated in the two anti-bolshevik wars in Karelia.

The relations between Finland and SU were very strained in the 20s but they started to improve in early 30s. The non-aggression pact is one sign of this improvement. But this process slowed down when Hitler's rearmament started to threaten the peace in Europe, and completely stopped when Stalin's great purges started. Sensible diplomacy was not exactly easy when the diplomats of one side have a constant fear of getting killed for "fraternizing with people's enemies". Stalin issued quotas for the numbers of party officials to purge. And those quotas had to be met (and preferably even exceeded), so anything could be used as a proof of traitorhood.

Again, my question: WHY did the Soviets suddenly cut off negotiations and start a war?

Because:

1) Finns refused to cede the "Main Line of Defence" to Soviets. Finns were prepared to cede territory in Karelian Isthmus, but the Soviets were not content with those areas and they demanded that the whole fortified area should be ceded to SU. (Note that this was the only area with fortified defences along the best attack route to inner Finland).

2) Finns refused to give Hanko as a base for the Red Army.

Finns were prepared to accept other Soviet demands, but not those two. When Soviets realised that, they cut off the negotiations. But they didn't say that to the Finnish negotiators that way. The Finns believed that it was only a temporary pause and the negotiations would be continued in a week or two after both sides have had time to consider their positions again. Instead, SU started the war.

If they were just stark raving mad Soviets, why did they even start with negotiations in the first place?

Because the negotiations worked well with Estonia, Latvia, and Liethuania.

Why didn't they just invade straight off and be done with it?

Because they believed that they could impose their rule on Finland without a war.

And if they were bonkers, why did Finland humour them?

I'd suggest you look at the map sometime and compare the relative sizes of Finland and Soviet Union.

 

[Zep]

I didn't see a smiley, so I'll assume you are serious...

Because they [the Soviets] like killing and destroying and probably thought that negotiations take too much time before they can start doing it.

Then why did they ever start negotiating in the first place? Why not just "arrive" in great armed numbers with no warning at all?

 

[Wire]

I didn't see a smiley, so I'll assume you are serious...Then why did they ever start negotiating in the first place? Why not just "arrive" in great armed numbers with no warning at all?

Half-serious actually. And I continue to be. With all kinds of nasty habits, they [soviets] also had quite a portion of practical attitude. It's easier to murder and pillage, when nobody fights back. Now look at LW's post. Soviets managed to make Baltics accept military bases and virtually remove any chance to defend themselves.

Why do all large nations believe that smaller ones yearn to be governed by them? That's the real question. But a rhetorical one, I'm afraid.

edit: grammar

 

[Zep]

In this particular case the other country was Soviet Union. One of their political doctrines was World Revolution where the whole world will become a socialist paradise when they help the oppressed workers of the other countries to cast their shackles.

The two main reasons why Soviet Union didn't actually get seriously in the world revolution business were:

1) done in large scale it would have provoked a war against pretty much every other country in existence; and

2) Stalin preferred to consolidate his internal rule.

Now, given that Sovien Union had the official policy of extending the Soviet rule over all countries, do you think that they wouldn't have tried apply that if they could have done it without risking a major war?

So, when you flee to the neighbouring countries, you rely that someone else is willing to fight against the Red Army.

Now we seem to be getting closer to some actual reasons for how things worked out the way they did. Not the "headlines" reasons.

So, in summary, would you say that the Soviet attack on Finland was seen as one of the first acts of spreading "World Communism"?

And in what way would taking over Finland have consolidated Stalin's power base? If successful, I would have thought it would have made some Russian Army general a hero, and Stalin couldn't stand that sort of competition - he was exceedingly jealous of his standing in the eyes of the people (i.e. he liked to be God). What did Stalin stand to gain from attacking Finland?

Sure as hell they noticed. They noticed that the Communist party throughly purged its Karelian branch in 1937: only three or four notable party workers with Finnish or Karelian origins survived it. Those who were accused publically were sentenced mostly for "Finnish nationalism" and "spying for Finland and other Western countries". Definitely a bad sign.

They also noticed that the Red Army was expanding quickly. For example, K. Kurko's Puna-armeija nykyhetkellä, 1938, notes that the Red Army had increased the number of its divisions from 81 to 92 during the three previous years. Another bad sign.

But still, up to November 26, 1939 most Finns believed that the war could be avoided.

So there were quite a number of very clear and recognised signs of the upcoming conflict, over a quite long period - decades it seems. Is that what you are saying?

Please enumerate [options].

What I mean by saying there would have been many options is that I don't think that ALL of them have been enumerated here. Nor do I expect that they could all be laid out here (the issue is STILL be hashed over today, so obviously agreement is yet to be reached!). The point is that we can all simplify a tense situation afterwards to convince ourselves and others that we "had no option" but the one we chose. That is rarely the real case.

And asking me to enumerate alternative options is like a homeopath trying to pick which molecules in a dilution will get passed on - the choices, consequences, and permutations are so numerous that it soon ceases to be comprehendable. Or, even in the face of increasingly complex histories that you are supplying, is this what you are expecting me to now do?

In case you didn't notice, the Estonian deaths were not caused by a war. There was no war between Estonia and Soviet Union in 1940-1. The events that led to Soviet terror in Estonia went as follows:

- In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union demanded in negotiations that Estonia allows Red Army to establish military bases in Estonian territory. They agreed to do so because they were not in a position to say "no".

- In June 1940 (when the attention of the world was in the fall of France), Soviet Union claimed that Estonia had breached the treaty and occupied the country. This was easily done by the 100,000 Red Army soldiers who were positioned in the bases.

- In July 1940 the Soviets held a referendum where 96% of the Estonian people voluntarily voted to join the Soviet Union. To ensure that the voting was fair, the Red Army posted armed guards at all voting locations to prevent fascist agitators from interfering the business.

The same thing happened in Latvia.

The same thing happened in Liethuania.

The first step of this process happened also in Finland. And we also got to see what the Soviet response was for not giving bases for Red Army: a war. So, we have examples for both countries that caved in the front of the demands and not, and see what the results were for both options.

The result that Estonia had for the caving was a peace-time terror that killed proportionally more people than the war killed in Finland.

Stalin was not particularly targeting Estonians or Latvians in these civilian purges. He had already purged enough of his own people to far outnumber any of these losses. Terror and elimination of perceived enemies was just his way of "keeping control" of any population, regardless of who they were. (Yes, I think Stalin was seriously deranged - very astute, cunning and clever, but he was also SERIOUSLY paranoid.) Or do you think Latvia, Estonia, etc were selected for special attention by the Russians, and were treated differently to, say, wartime Chechnya?

Well, Finland could have tried to improve relations with Soviet Union, for example, by signing a non-aggression pact that forbids all offensive actions between the parties. Oh, wait, we did that in 1934. And it was a 10-year one with "no option for cancelling the treaty until it runs out".

Or we could have appealed to the League of Nations. Well, we tried that too, didn't help.

Or perhaps we could have asked Germany to guarantee our safety? Well, when Hitler made the pact with Stalin he explicitly gave him free hands with Baltic states and Finland.

What about guarantees from UK and France? They worked very well for Poland and Checkoslovakia, didn't they?

There were two main reasons fror the mutual distrust between Finland and Soviet Union:

- Finland was a part of Russia for 100 years. Czar Nicholas II managed to alienate a large part of Finns by his pan-Slavic policies that aimed (among other things) to dissolvement of Finland as a separate entity. Also, Finns were aware of the Lenin's comment regarding to new independent countries that separated from Russia: "Let them go, they will come back". So, there was a real fear that the Soviet Union would one day try to annex Finland.

- The Finnish Civil War of 1918. The Reds lost the war and a large number of them fled to Soviet Russia. Throughout the 20s they plotted for a revance but in the end they failed to get the Soviet government to offer real military backing for the operation. But their activities were known in Finland. The Civil War also gave the Soviets a reason for concern: the German division that landed in Southern Finland had been a serious threat for Soviet rule in Petrograd, and they were worried that it would happen again. Also, a number of Finnish volunteers had participated in the two anti-bolshevik wars in Karelia.

The relations between Finland and SU were very strained in the 20s but they started to improve in early 30s. The non-aggression pact is one sign of this improvement. But this process slowed down when Hitler's rearmament started to threaten the peace in Europe, and completely stopped when Stalin's great purges started. Sensible diplomacy was not exactly easy when the diplomats of one side have a constant fear of getting killed for "fraternizing with people's enemies". Stalin issued quotas for the numbers of party officials to purge. And those quotas had to be met (and preferably even exceeded), so anything could be used as a proof of traitorhood.

So there WERE more potential options, some of which were even tried. And we have even more useful details appearing as well. It seems the Russo-Finnish issue had long roots, not just within decades but up to a century old. And as I thought - it was not as simple a situation as first explained here, so any solutions would have been equally complex. Certainly it's not all as simple as you seem to think it would have been. Do you agree?

Because:

1) Finns refused to cede the "Main Line of Defence" to Soviets. Finns were prepared to cede territory in Karelian Isthmus, but the Soviets were not content with those areas and they demanded that the whole fortified area should be ceded to SU. (Note that this was the only area with fortified defences along the best attack route to inner Finland).

2) Finns refused to give Hanko as a base for the Red Army.

Finns were prepared to accept other Soviet demands, but not those two. When Soviets realised that, they cut off the negotiations. But they didn't say that to the Finnish negotiators that way. The Finns believed that it was only a temporary pause and the negotiations would be continued in a week or two after both sides have had time to consider their positions again. Instead, SU started the war.

Because the negotiations worked well with Estonia, Latvia, and Liethuania.

Because they believed that they could impose their rule on Finland without a war.

Let me just rephrase the last line just very slightly: Because they believed that they could have imposed their rule on Finland without using arms. The Russians probably wouldn't have considered anything as formal as "going to war" would be needed to take over Finland. The probably thought they could just rattle all their sabres and Finland would cave in. If not, a few military scares to convince them. Who were these pipsqueak Finns anyway? They I expect they also thought that, if necessary, they had armies of many millions of men which they could throw against the Finnish border, and simply march over them by weight of numbers.

So did they?

I'd suggest you look at the map sometime and compare the relative sizes of Finland and Soviet Union.

Hyperbole. The relative sizes of the Soviet Union and ANY OTHER COUNTRY would have been similarly unequal. Or does that matter in some way?

 

[Zep]

Half-serious actually. And I continue to be. With all kinds of nasty habits, they [soviets] also had quite a portion of practical attitude. It's easier to murder and pillage, when nobody fights back. Now look at LW's post. Soviets managed to make Baltics accept military bases and virtually remove any chance to defend themselves.

Why do all large nations believe that smaller ones yearn to be governed by them? That's the real question. But a rhetorical one, I'm afraid.

edit: grammar

Point taken in advance, hence my question: Why didn't the Soviets simply start marching over Finland from east to west, and not bother negotiating at all? They certainly had the armed manpower available at that time to far outnumber the Finns many times over...

 

[LW]

So, in summary, would you say that the Soviet attack on Finland was seen as one of the first acts of spreading "World Communism"?

No.

Soviets weren't too keen in the actual world communism spreading (except in the form of supporting communist parties in hope that they would in some time in unspecified future do something and by supplying weapons to various ongoing conflicts) since that could have easily lead them to open conflict with UK, France, Germany, or US. This in our real world, that is.

But in a hypothetical world where the (other) major powers would not be interested in waging wars over such silly reasons, they would not have faced such a threat of a major war. And I don't see a reason why they wouldn't have -- in such environvent that didn't exist in the real history -- embarked on a journey to their stated goal of world communism.

And in what way would taking over Finland have consolidated Stalin's power base?

As I posted earlier, the immediate motivation for Winter War from Soviet side was the fear of the safety of Leningrad. The Finnish border was a little over 30 km away from the Northern suburbs of Leningrad, within the range of heavy artillery. (Though, despite what Soviets claimed, Finland didn't have such guns positioned along the border, no Finnish politician or military commander would have authorized such a suicidical provocation) The Estonian border was further to the South-West, but still too close for comfort.

As the threat of WWII grew in late 30s, the Soviets became increasingly aware of the situation around Leningrad. They didn't fear that Finland would attack Leningrad, they realised that we weren't that dumb. But they feared that Germany, UK, or France attacked Leningrad through Finnish territory (or through Baltic states). This was a legitimate fear. It would be very difficult to stop a major attack in that short space, and Leningrad was the second most important city of the country.

The Soviets expressed this viewpoint during the negotiations. The Finnish answer to this was to guarantee that Finland would stay neutral in any conflict between Soviet Union and anybody else. But this was not enough to the Soviets. First, they didn't believe that promise. Second, Stalin himself said that if Western powers wanted to attack through Finland, they would do it without asking the opinion of Finnish government and that they would simply brush aside the Finnish army if Finns tried to resist.

So, the Soviet viewpoint was that only thing that would guarantee that nobody attacks Leningrad through Finland would be to position a sizable Soviet force in Finland. And since Finns were not prepared to allow it to enter peacefully, they would have to come violently.

The other, unstated objective for the Red Army presence in Finland was that it could be used to overthrow the democratic government (where social democrats, the group that was even more descpicable than fascists, had a strong influence) and to issue a puppet governent that would then voluntarily join Soviet Union.

This is what happened in the Baltic states. Of course, since Finland is so much bigger than those states, occupying it would be more difficult, but the 150,000 troops stationed in Hanko could have occupied the important cities in Southern Finland before there would have been time to mobilize the army. In particular, Soviets demanded free railroad travel in uninspected trains between Hanko and Soviet territory. This railroad passed close the Finnish House of Parlament (less than 1/2 km away), so the Soviets could have captured most of the Finnish goverment by force before the Finnish troops stationed in Helsinki would have had time to react by simply hiding a batallion or a regiment of infantry in closed railroad cars.

So there were quite a number of very clear and recognised signs of the upcoming conflict, over a quite long period - decades it seems. Is that what you are saying?

I would say that "decades" is in this case too long period and "several years" would be more accurate assesment. Hitler's rearmament was a significant catalyst in the sequence of events. I don't believe that Soviet Union had started the power grab if it hadn't happened. The situation was tense before but the relations were slowly improving until the European power politics mixed the issue.

Stalin was not particularly targeting Estonians or Latvians in these civilian purges.

Agreed. That didn't make their fate any more pleasant. Though, in the later history of Soviet Union (namely Brezhnev's time) the people from Baltic states faced more persecution than, say, ethnic Russians. But Stalin was an equal-opportunity tyrant.

And we have even more useful details appearing as well. It seems the Russo-Finnish issue had long roots, not just within decades but up to a century old.

It you start the "up to century old" line, then you have to go back far further than that: there were 25 wars where Finns and Russians fought against each other between 1323 - 1918. And Finnish ultra-nationalists did just that: they had the habit of calling Russians with names like "The Fundamental Enemy", "The Ancient Enemy", or "The Inherited Enemy" because of the long history of warfare. But they were a minority. A vocal minority, that has to be admitted, but still a small minority. The government wasn't particularly pleased in their public statements and actually a couple of ultra-nationalist (with fascist tendencies) organizations were disbanded by the government in the 30s.

The vast majority of Finns were reasonably content under Russian rule. In fact, Czar Alexander II was perhaps the most popular monarch that Finland has ever had. But Nicholas II managed to change this with his insistence of pan-slavism. So, if you want to put a single date to mark the beginnings of the worsening of the relations between Finns and Russians, it would be 1899.

And as I thought - it was not as simple a situation as first explained here, so any solutions would have been equally complex.

Like I said: "whole books have been written on the subject".

Let me just rephrase the last line just very slightly: Because they believed that they could have imposed their rule on Finland without using arms.

Yup.

The Russians probably wouldn't have considered anything as formal as "going to war" would be needed to take over Finland. The probably thought they could just rattle all their sabres and Finland would cave in. If not, a few military scares to convince them. Who were these pipsqueak Finns anyway?

Certainly. The Red Army thought that it would be basically an occupation of Finland with perhaps a couple of minor skirmishes on the way. In a couple of places they marched over the border in closed formation with a band playing in the front. In the North, the initial orders included stuff like: "remember to be polite towards Swedish border guards".

That it actually became a bloody war was a major surprise for most of the Red Army (Shaposnikov perhaps excepted, and possibly General Grendal).

They I expect they also thought that, if necessary, they had armies of many millions of men which they could throw against the Finnish border, and simply march over them by weight of numbers.

And this is what they ended up doing. Though, in the end they stopped just before the Finnish front at Isthmus was crushed. (A recent study on the situation of Finnish army at the end of the war concluded that the defence at Tali was actually pretty much collapsed at the end of the war and the commander of the 23rd Infantry Division (hopefully I don't remember the number incorrectly) had already lost the control of his troops -- the Soviets just didn't realize it as the earlier heavy losses had made them extremely cautious in advancing. There ware also two other sections where the Soviets were about to achieve breakthroughs that couldn't have been stopped).

Stalin had three main reasons for finally agreeing for a negotiated peace instead of a total surrender:

1) Soviet losses had been far heavier than excepted (about 95,000 reported KIA and MIA before March 10. In addition to this, there were over 20,000 such casualties that weren't included, for a reason or another, in casualty reports).

2) Stalin didn't know how close Finland was to destruction: the Finnish strategic infantry reserves had shrunk to one fully trained batallion and some of quick-trained cannon-fodder units.

3) There was the threat that UK and France would join the war against SU. Now we know that it was mostly sabre-rattling: the main purpose for the British "relief formation" was actually to capture the Swedish iron mines and only 10% of the promised 20,000 men would have actually been sent to Finland. But Stalin didn't know these details and his spies had claimed that British and French were already positioned in Persia ready for an attack to the oil-producing Caucasus. This information was false but that wasn't found out until after the war .

Hyperbole. The relative sizes of the Soviet Union and ANY OTHER COUNTRY would have been similarly unequal. Or does that matter in some way?

Well, when the neighbouring country with militaristic tendencies and a 50-fold superiority in population invites your government into negotiations, you simply go there even if you personally might think that the country is governed by a bunch of paranoid maniacs. [And no, I don't think that the Finnish negotiators actually thought that way].

 

[Wire]

Point taken in advance, hence my question: Why didn't the Soviets simply start marching over Finland from east to west, and not bother negotiating at all? They certainly had the armed manpower available at that time to far outnumber the Finns many times over...

Isn't that been said over and over already? Russia/SU wanted to annex certain territories. I don't think these negotiations were of great importance. What matters is that they had decided the fate of Finland for themselves and were going to carry it out by whatever means necessary. And Russians are only stopped by brutal force equal or greater as it has been proved many times in history.

 

[Giz]

Point taken in advance, hence my question: Why didn't the Soviets simply start marching over Finland from east to west, and not bother negotiating at all? They certainly had the armed manpower available at that time to far outnumber the Finns many times over...

Are you serious? Why not try and get something for nothing? Even if a tyrant like Stalin doesn't care about the bloodshed there's still the roubles needed to finance the war (plus all that effort to "spin"/cover-up any embarressing reverses).

As it turned out, there was no such thing as a free lunch - even for communists.

 

[bigred]

Here's an idea, why not start a WW II thread geez