It was not tragedy. Russia won this war with 5 times bigger casualities, but thats normal from offensive side and in wild winter terrain and in just 3 months.
@Ilgas Not actualising set objectives is no victory per se, as not reaching the summit is no conquering the mountain. Russia FAILED to occupy Finland in 1939. It didn't reach Helsinki in a fortnight as boasted by Molotov at the time. They didn't get there even in three months. Not EVER. No Russian boot ever trampled in the streets of Helsinki. No crimes against humanity was committed there by the Red Army as was happening all over "liberated" Eastern European countries. So there. Ratio was 10:1.
@Ilgas Hope they were more in step than your comment is....; i.e. the topic here does not allow for your comment; it's out of step like the Soviet rag-tag army that "marched" through Eastern Europe, pillaging and terrorising the populace.
As for the Finns, they said "as ne tau", held their ground; and the Soviets said da da and went home.
@Ilgas 5 times bigger casualties are nowhere near normal in offensive side...
like 1,5 times bigger casualties are normal..
And USSR didnt ''win in just 3 months'', they only got a small piece of Finland and even that, they didnt invade, Finland gave it. USSR goal was to occupy whole Finland, which it failed at, therefore USSR suffered a tragic bloody loss.
Interesting video. Thanks. I never realized that the Finnish success against the Soviets provided Hitler with the encouragement to attack Stalin. And as EYEREX1 stated, "Viva Swanee."
Red Army commanders lacked the tactical skills, training, and perhaps above all, the communication systems, to maintain continuous fronts. Although after Stalin's death his role as warlord was considerable diminished, his successors (e.g Putin) nurtured all the other legends of "The Great Patriotic War".
What russians don't want to see is the fact that so called "mighty red army" was actually just a bunch of shabby lowtrained soldiers commanded by unskillfull officers.
There are several documents showing that Soviet-Russia made their first military plans to conquer Finland and three Baltic countries in 1924. Even the Finnish Communist Party founded in Russia 1918 in it's decleration told that the "real fatherland of all workers is Soviet-Russia".
However during the war (1939-44) huge majority of finnish communist men fought against Soviet Union. There were quite few finnish communists follow that decleration of Finnish Communist Party of O.V. Kuusinen.
This Russian or Ukrainian veteran is one of the few Soviet veterans I've seen that I can truly respect. He hasn't bought into the lies of the Communist government that so many of even the elder, including war veteran, population of Russia (& Ukraine & Belorussia) believe in. He also knows what he's talking about from experience!
The man said that he personally saw in this war. That surprise you?
In the Soviet union has officially recognized the Soviet-Finnish war failed and unprepared.
The fact that the Finns fought with the Russian, it is an merit guide Finland - German Mannerheim. Bloody, I must say, merit. If Finland did not have such a leader, then Soviet soldiers met in Helsinki with flowers, just as it was in Tallinn, Riga and Kaunas.
@gukow1 I don't agree that everything was peaceful when the Soviets assumed control of the Baltic States. I have talked with Estonians who had family members taken by Soviet secret police soon after the occupation and they were never heard from again. They disliked the Germans, but they detested the Soviets.
@gukow1 So did most Finns also want the Red Army to take control of their nation too?? I have respect for those that fought in the Red Army, but I don't have respect for Stalin and the Soviet leadership. First off they were essentially allies with Nazi Germany for almost two years, and Finland was part of their agreed upon booty from Hitler. Then Stalin's inept overruling of Red Army commanders and poor preparation almost resulted in Soviet defeat in 1941.
Everything depends on the state elites. If the elite will be able to mobilized the people to war against another country, then people will go to war. If the elite could not or would not do it, then people have to give the flowers the winner. Do you think that in Finland at that time were all tuned anti-Soviet?
There are no historical documents, wherever to argue that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were allies. So do not call them allies. This is not true.
Elite running the country. So that the elite of the state is always responsible for all the problems and shortcomings, which are in the state. but apart from the problems and deficiencies occurring outstanding achievements. For these achievements are also responsible elite. Stalin, as commander in chief certainly to blame for the failure of 1941, but one can not deny responsibility for the victory of Stalin in 1945
@gukow1 I have no idea how many Fins supported Soviet rule of their nation. Do you? So do you believe that the Soviet invasion of Finland (the relevant topic at hand) was justified? If so, why?
@gukow1 The fact that Molotov and Ribbentrop signed a non-aggression Pact, which divided Eastern Europe into Soviet and Nazi spheres, combined with their cooperation in the invasion of Poland, and increase in trade is reliable indicator of their understanding as allies. The truth can be painful.
Stalin was smarter than Hitler, in letting his Generals do their job after he overruled them constantly in 1941 after exterminating them in the 1930's. Stalin was a despot.
@gukow1 If you want to give the majority of the credit to Stalin versus the Russian people and Allied Nations for defeating Nazi Germany, that is your opinion. I think it cheapens the sacrifice of millions, and borders on worship of Josef Stalin.
What have the Germans in Estonia? You probably confuse 1945 with 1940. In 1940, no problems there. During the Nazi occupation of the Baltic states are very many local residents have cooperated with the Nazis. I mean the extermination of Jews, communists, Soviet partisans, carrying out punitive actions against the inhabitants of Russian villages. Since many of them had hands in the blood, they feared that the Soviet power will come back to Baltic and punish them for those crimes.
@gukow1 I agree that Mannerheim saved Finland in 1939-45 (and in 1918), but had he not existed, then someone else would have stepped into his place, albeit perhaps someone with less experience.
At first communists committed crimes against russians in Russia, executing intelligent people and ordinary peasants, who did not want to give their food away. Then soviets had "great idea of world revolution". With nazi-Germany they signed pact of Molotov-Ribbentrop and started WW II. Their goal was spread communism all around the world. You can only think of how many innocent civilians they would have executed all over Europe, if soviets have had been succesful..
Sir(s): I say, here, with all my Very Heart, namely, "It is a Good Thing that the Enemy is Never Seen Nowhere as if they all were merely Forest." Just one question, however, "Did they hear and feel the shells firing into their gut?" Thank you.
What a list of stuff, tupakki; that's how they were able to...lol. Who knows, without it, our Tom Sawyer here would be singing: Ich bin Russiche Deutsch.
Guy is a joker; so. After you've stated how things are, treat him as a joker that he is.
Unfortunately I must be off: "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep."
Yeah, and in keeping to the pact between the two Moes, Hitler began mass relocation of the ethnic Germans (some 1/2 million) from the Baltic States, ahead of Russia's imminent invasion of the same.
Interesting to note that those who were sold out (Balts and Finns), would later on join forces with the one who sold them out in the first place , to fight against the Butcher and his hordes.
if by 'arrogance' you mean that they did not want to lose their recently-gained freedom, then yes.
finland and the baltic states were bothering nobody. the ussr picked a fight with them, not the other way around. the baltics didn't want to risk an invasion, so they complied. the finns resisted-- and kept their freedom for the decades to come.
sure it doesnt if the aim is to blame soviet union in being worse than nazis and to
(proftl)
Actually, aim is to point it out to you that the two bosom buddy hegemonists - Hitler and Stalin - shook hands on invading INDEPENDENT NATIONS; and that they did just that.
If you need proof, watch the video above.
Second point was that, Stalin sanctioned Munich by his own INVASION of INDEPENDENT NATIONS.
Third, that those INDEPENDENT NATIONS had a right to kill Russians.
- 23,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations
- oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on
- 15 million pairs of army boots, 23 million yards of cloth
- 1,000 locomotives, 400,000 trucks
- 476,000 tons of super critical AV gas
Most of equipment were shipped at the most critical time of war. By that steel and aluminium Soviet Union was able to build its arms, not without it. Amount of tha steel, 70,000 T-34 tanks were able to build.
sure it doesnt if the aim is to blame soviet union in being worse than nazis and to make western assholes who made nothing to prevent the war, but made much to provoke it, starting with versailles, it means nothing. we ignore all facts and pick only those that suit our paradigm and voila, we are good, we fight for peace, and everyone around is a bloodthirsty jew or mongolian. nope, moron, in order to survive you have to be ready for a war, because your enemies would not wait for you.
and every ignored conflict, every time you tolerate aggression, thinking that it might help you in future you help war to turn on you. but this lesson is not to be learnt even, as there are imbeciles from hell knows where who would teach that only molotov-ribbentrop matters for ww2.
goebbels can heil western education system, thats for sure.
"if we accept germany's proposal about the conclusion of a pact regarding invasion, she will of course attack poland, and france and england's involvement in this war will be inevitable. western europe will be subjected to serious disorders and disturbances. under these conditions, we will have many chances to stay on the sidelines of the conflict, and we will be able to count on our advantageous entrance into the war...
it is in the interest in the USSR the motherland of workers that the war unfolds between the Reich and the capitalist anglo-french block. it is necessary to do everything within our powers to make this war last as long as possible, in order to exhaust the two sides. it is precisely for this reason that we must agree to signing the pact, proposed by germany, and work on making this war, once declared, last a maximum amount of time."
Things were working like a clock-work, and Stalin was at his best -murders, deportations, torture, starvation. His usual. However, there was one serious glitch to proceedings, giving Russians a migraine, as recorded in the interview:
Molotov: Unstoppable red-army would've easily conquered Finland in Spring 1940, and in Summer 1944; except our attack was stopped.
Interviewer: Did you stop our attack?
Molotov: No, not I, nor Stalin, but that #@#! Finnish army
"always so one sided...poor balts consisted only of freedom loving cuties. when nazis came it showed who they really were" (protfl)
Yeah, they were fathers, husbands, brothers and relatives of those who had been murdered or deported during the russian terror of 1939-40.
As to Munich agreement, with Molotov/Ribbetrop, Stalin sanctioned Hitler's previous advances, providing he'd be given the baltics and Finland. Hitler his pal happily agreed, and promptly invaded Poland.
1st of all nobody was driven out from afghanistan nor finland. second, i'd like to know examples of russian aggressiveness against weak neighbours except finland. learn history better, brainwashed.
no, finns were better soldiers. later in the war, when russians were better led, finns still inflicted grievous defeats on the red army (tali-ihantala).
but the red army's soldiers were still rather good, better than most. their biggest strength was in their numbers.
Music to my ears. It is good that Red Army failed to occupy Finland because I have read what happend to the Baltic countries and poles and it was not nice what happend to them.
haha, and you'll call people affected by propaganda, when you say about 100% truth and having berlin wall as your wallpaper :) shitty liberal without ideals.
weaker neighbours besides finland: estonia, latvia, lithuania, rumania. not to mention forcing communism upon eastern europe.
my family is from berlin. that is the #1 reason for my bg.
ideals? perhaps you would like others to adopt the ideals of imperialism of the proletariat, the same ideals which drove you to attempt a rather embarrassing invasion of finland.
you seem to think that that is ok. you must then also support the nazi invasion of poland.
its in context of ww2 and moving borders away, quite weak examples also, as none of them were annexed. also i expected something more, than just ww2 preparations.
poland provoked nazi invasion by blocking soviet-british-french coalition.
estonia, latvia, lithuania, and parts of rumania were annexed. I find it shocking that you don't know that.
yeah, yeah. "moving borders away". utter bullshit if you ask me. similar reasons were given for the invasion of poland which sparked ww2.
as a result of the losses incurred during ww2, the ussr was unable to launch major acts of aggression. the world stage had also changed drastically: nuclear weapons.
afghanistan was a rather sad attempt to re-live the glory days.
estonia, latvia and lithuania joined soviet union having same rights as any other soviet republic, and soviet gov. spent a lot of money into developing those republics, and they successfully wasted everything after becoming 'independent'... latest example is closed nuclear station in lithuania. bessarabia was REannexed, if you like the word.
ww2 started earlier than poland and could have been prevented, at least with its german part.
what is nato doing in afghan, reliving past of brit empire?
after what happened in finland, the baltic republics really had no choice. they saw what happened if soviet demands were refused, and reluctantly allowed themselves to be annexed so as to prevent war.
when the nazis came through, the baltic region had very high levels of collaboration with them, which shows just how much they loved being part of mother russia again...
after the war, anti-soviet partisan activity continued well into the 1950s (forest brothers).
always so one sided...poor balts consisted only of freedom loving cuties. when nazis came it showed who they really were, those antirussian excuses are lame.
lets call red army faction a good thing aswell. anyone who wants to kill you is a good guy, do you agree? basque bombers are also good guys, uck, al quaeda, right?
wiser choice is to place military bases instead, i know what you mean.
when did you starve last time, little boy. its so cute when those who are well fed would talk about starving.
just because romania or poland had them does mean the same. on the other hand there are established borders and wanna be ones. if after any war territories reverted back what would be the point of having those wars, russia doesnt claim territories it had never owned, unlike our western smartasses.
it means more who populated those areas. polish eastlands were ethnically mixed, with important polish population centers. bessarabia was majority rumanian.
you may not 'claim' them, but you certainly enjoy controlling them.
poland blocked nothing. the issue of poland was first raised by none other than the soviets, who wanted to essentially occupy it (revenge for polish-soviet war?).
poland was not a member in the tripartite talks, and as such could not 'block' anything. the western allies were greatly concerned with the fate of poland, as it was regarded as the 'keystone of versailles'. handing its security over to such a questionable entity as the ussr was not a good idea.
nope, soviet union had responsibilities before czechoslovakia, just like brits and french who fed nazis with it.
poland was an ally of britain and france, successful alliance between them and soviet union depended only on poland, poland chose to be used as cannon fodder, wise decision, i respect poles for that. also soviet union returned only those lands that poland took apart from their versailles borders. and after the war they were given german territory in exchange of this loss.
the soviet union fed nazi germany much more than did the western allies. the entire western offensive was made possible by generous amounts of soviet raw materials. not to mention the fact that the molotov-ribbentrop pact essentially gave hitler the 'green light' to start the war.
even before hitler, the ussr was helping re-arm germany in defiance of versailles by training pilots and tankers in secret facilities in the ussr.
lol, it doesnt matter and he started supporting out of nowhere... you must be an idiot?
mb you were born out of nowhere while nothing happened before your mother got pregnant, moron.
i doubt it'd be easy to explain for yanks and brits why did they ally stalin after all. to modern living imbeciles there's no need to explain, they would eat any shit for their breakfast.
poland did not want their independence to be compromised by soviet occupation. they stood their ground (expecting nonexistent western help) and were torn down by nazis and soviets.
furthermore, nazi-soviet negotiations were begun before the tripartite talks ended. the ussr was exploring an option there, nothing more.
what if america wanted to send troops to occupy, say, moscow or st. petersburg? would you like that?
if america wanted to do help people of leningrad under the siege this way, i bet i would love that, but they would never do such, its not in their nature, their wonderful unique lives cost too much.
there was nothing more to discuss at those talks, anything was possible not to let hitler ally france and britain + japan against soviet union... soviet policy was times smarter than polish.
Actually americans wanted to help you in eastern front against Germany. Stalin was scared that if americans come, he can't take eastern Europe to under its influence so he said no thanks. The biggest scare for Stalin was that Poland will keep its eastern borders if americans help.
haha, its not help, its stealing of victory. its like you pay 95% for smth, i give you 5% and own the thing you wanted to buy... please divide help from swindle, lend-lease was practical in its help, not letting soviet union to take berlin and block its influence, especially when it'd mean that britain would still remain in its power, while was of help comparable with french, in cost of 27 million lives of soviet citizens only a pig could agree... its not help...
What are you talking there? USA helped you many other ways as well than sending troops in eastern front. You got thousands of vehicles, thousands of air planes (also permission to build american models), tons of food etc. I have the detailed information in book if you want to hear. That's why the railroad of Murmansk was vital for russians. Also the danger of japanese reduce because USA joined the war. You could have relocated troops from that direction to eastern front against Germany.
france and britain would not have allied with powers directly threatening them. there was NO danger of france and britain allying with nazi germany and japan.
you arguments are at times as ridiculous and repulsive as neo-nazi arguments justifying the holocaust.
this coming from the guy who tries in the most weasel-like ways possible to justify imperialism on the part of the ussr.
"oh it isn't OUR fault that we acted as an aggressor in the second world war. it isn't OUR fault that we aided a regime responsible for heinous crimes against humanity. it was the WEST'S fault for not stopping us, because we have no self-control over our conquering urges!"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What a bullshit, Germany and Finland has a plan to attack USSR together. USSR is counterattack Finland. And people like you piece of shit rewriting history.
German was in Finlands side in continuation war. and thats because finland was inportant help for Hitler to take over soviet union. in 1939 germany and soviet union were allies and they had an ugreement to share some europe. including finland which was ment to be USSR's. but the dickface soviets didn't do well against tiny finland. so, what were you talking about rewriting history?
This guy is telling about BATTLE OF RAATE ROAD where soviet union lost (depending on reference) 17 000 -30 000 men. The soviets union only admitted that a few hundret soldiers were killed in that battle.
this is also a good example how soviets tried to invade Finland, or as they say "liberate"....Red army has never liberated anybody! Red army invaded Baltic states, invaded Poland...executing many innocent people...
The strange thing with Finland was, that we fought during the WWII twice the Soviet Union and once Germany, and still, we we were never occupied and survived this world war as an independent country.
well that means that u the Finns are True Warriors.one of the few nations that fought against a strong enemy,survived and won its freedom and respect.
To those posting the number of soviet casualties... 500 000 was the strenght of the attackforce, not the casualties... Do not go over the roof. It's the same thing as if you said that Finlands army consists of 500 000 men. It's 350 000
I always wondered how the Finns stayed out of the clutches of the Russians. What a difference if you look at the progress in Finland (and the other western nations) versus that what was controlled by the USSR. And now the USSR wants to repeat the past!
I guess the ruSSians wanted to liberate Finland the same way they did the Baltic countries. In stead they ended up like beautiful frozen statues in the freezing finnish forests!
Greetings from Greece.i read a book about the Winter War.and i tell u this.Finns are the Spartans of Scandinavia.they fought without fear the "red beast".Hail thee Finns immortal warriors of the North
Jesus! What the hell happened up there in WW2? Im a bit embarrased to say I dont know anything about it, can anyone tell me a good book on the subject? Did you side with the Germans because you had no choice?We were fighting Tojo at the time so I dont what happened,seems like you Finns kicked some serious ass!Respect!
"Frozen Hell" by William Trotter is very good. During the "Winter war" germany was still 'allied' with the soviets so we got no help from them at the time (not much elsewhere either). In the 40-41 period we were faced with the choice either to seek support from Germany or face another Soviet invasion alone - easy pick at the time.
"The Unknown Soldier" by Väinö Linna which covers the continuating war 1941-1944 is another good book on the subject. He could be compared to Remarque who wrote All quiet on the Western Front. Linna used his experience as a finnish squad leader during WWII to write his book from the perspective of the finnish privates and NCOs.
Eternal honor and respect to the brave Finns who fought against the Soviet invaders! Like their Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, and Western Ukrainian brothers and sisters, they chose to risk their lives in battle rather than live in slavery.
Fucking embarassing, if it wasn't for the Purge and Stalin. The Finns would have fought well in either case. Also, the fucking communists of the early 30s were conservatives, disbanding paratroopers.
LOL but didn't they disband themselves from the axis towards the end and joined the allies? I might be wrong, in which case what u said is pretty funny XD
Nations such as Canada (where I live) is technically STILL at war with Finland. There has never been an armistice between Finland and Canada, Great Britain, etc.
The Soviets did force Finland to sign a treaty at the end of the war. Finland had to give up some valuable land to the U.S.S.R.
Finland did not join the Allies, they were forced to fight the Germans when they signed the 1944 Soviet treaty because it was one of the conditions. In return, the Russians would not invade Finland in 1945.
The English narrator says that the reds had a 2:1 advantage, in reality they had 4:1 advantage in man power and if we talk tanks and airplanes the odds were insane.
thats what you get for fucking with small countries :) and yes im Finn :D
JTHEMAN93 3 months ago
LOL'D at all these butthurted russfags in comment section
Small Finland kicked your ass, your army is useless piece of meat no strategy or what so ever, get over it.
PIRAKAS666 4 months ago 4
It was not tragedy. Russia won this war with 5 times bigger casualities, but thats normal from offensive side and in wild winter terrain and in just 3 months.
Ilgas 10 months ago
@Ilgas Not actualising set objectives is no victory per se, as not reaching the summit is no conquering the mountain. Russia FAILED to occupy Finland in 1939. It didn't reach Helsinki in a fortnight as boasted by Molotov at the time. They didn't get there even in three months. Not EVER. No Russian boot ever trampled in the streets of Helsinki. No crimes against humanity was committed there by the Red Army as was happening all over "liberated" Eastern European countries. So there. Ratio was 10:1.
obuBBubo 10 months ago 4
@obuBBubo
Russian boots trampled in Helsinki for 110 years (1809-1918). So you must read more, less comment here.
Ilgas 9 months ago
@Ilgas Hope they were more in step than your comment is....; i.e. the topic here does not allow for your comment; it's out of step like the Soviet rag-tag army that "marched" through Eastern Europe, pillaging and terrorising the populace.
As for the Finns, they said "as ne tau", held their ground; and the Soviets said da da and went home.
obuBBubo 9 months ago
@Ilgas 5 times bigger casualties are nowhere near normal in offensive side...
like 1,5 times bigger casualties are normal..
And USSR didnt ''win in just 3 months'', they only got a small piece of Finland and even that, they didnt invade, Finland gave it. USSR goal was to occupy whole Finland, which it failed at, therefore USSR suffered a tragic bloody loss.
kaahaajaFIN 3 weeks ago
soviet really failed. officially finland lost, but soviets get only karelia not all finland LOL!!!!!
lerjo991 10 months ago 4
@lerjo991 Soviets didn't even get Karjala. Finland just gave it to them so that the war would stop but before that Finland defended it successfully
isokessu 10 months ago 8
@hunvaybin about what?
umpisuoli87 1 year ago
@hunvaybin This guys telling the truth.
kaahaajaFIN 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
"Only Finland - superb, nay, sublime, in the jaws of peril - Finland shows what free man can do.
Sir Winston Churchill January 20, 1940
Isanmaantoivo100 1 year ago
Interesting video. Thanks. I never realized that the Finnish success against the Soviets provided Hitler with the encouragement to attack Stalin. And as EYEREX1 stated, "Viva Swanee."
39rc6cf 1 year ago
Viva Suomi.
EYEREX1 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Red Army commanders lacked the tactical skills, training, and perhaps above all, the communication systems, to maintain continuous fronts. Although after Stalin's death his role as warlord was considerable diminished, his successors (e.g Putin) nurtured all the other legends of "The Great Patriotic War".
What russians don't want to see is the fact that so called "mighty red army" was actually just a bunch of shabby lowtrained soldiers commanded by unskillfull officers.
tranmere789 1 year ago 2
There are several documents showing that Soviet-Russia made their first military plans to conquer Finland and three Baltic countries in 1924. Even the Finnish Communist Party founded in Russia 1918 in it's decleration told that the "real fatherland of all workers is Soviet-Russia".
However during the war (1939-44) huge majority of finnish communist men fought against Soviet Union. There were quite few finnish communists follow that decleration of Finnish Communist Party of O.V. Kuusinen.
tranmere789 1 year ago
An over 2:1 advantage? More like 4-5:1!
This Russian or Ukrainian veteran is one of the few Soviet veterans I've seen that I can truly respect. He hasn't bought into the lies of the Communist government that so many of even the elder, including war veteran, population of Russia (& Ukraine & Belorussia) believe in. He also knows what he's talking about from experience!
FFulmenTheFinnish 1 year ago
@FFulmenTheFinnish
The man said that he personally saw in this war. That surprise you?
In the Soviet union has officially recognized the Soviet-Finnish war failed and unprepared.
The fact that the Finns fought with the Russian, it is an merit guide Finland - German Mannerheim. Bloody, I must say, merit. If Finland did not have such a leader, then Soviet soldiers met in Helsinki with flowers, just as it was in Tallinn, Riga and Kaunas.
gukow1 1 year ago
@gukow1 I don't agree that everything was peaceful when the Soviets assumed control of the Baltic States. I have talked with Estonians who had family members taken by Soviet secret police soon after the occupation and they were never heard from again. They disliked the Germans, but they detested the Soviets.
contraryop1 1 year ago
@contraryop1
Estonian documentaries I have not. But there is a newsreel of Latvia
watch?v=ehSGbjEbHlo
watch?v=MrOKALLUURI
watch?v=1ULGt5l043g
A significant proportion of the population of these countries wanted and demanded from their governments to join these states to the Soviet Union
gukow1 1 year ago
@gukow1 So did most Finns also want the Red Army to take control of their nation too?? I have respect for those that fought in the Red Army, but I don't have respect for Stalin and the Soviet leadership. First off they were essentially allies with Nazi Germany for almost two years, and Finland was part of their agreed upon booty from Hitler. Then Stalin's inept overruling of Red Army commanders and poor preparation almost resulted in Soviet defeat in 1941.
contraryop1 1 year ago
@contraryop1
Everything depends on the state elites. If the elite will be able to mobilized the people to war against another country, then people will go to war. If the elite could not or would not do it, then people have to give the flowers the winner. Do you think that in Finland at that time were all tuned anti-Soviet?
There are no historical documents, wherever to argue that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were allies. So do not call them allies. This is not true.
gukow1 1 year ago
@contraryop1
Elite running the country. So that the elite of the state is always responsible for all the problems and shortcomings, which are in the state. but apart from the problems and deficiencies occurring outstanding achievements. For these achievements are also responsible elite. Stalin, as commander in chief certainly to blame for the failure of 1941, but one can not deny responsibility for the victory of Stalin in 1945
gukow1 1 year ago
@gukow1 I have no idea how many Fins supported Soviet rule of their nation. Do you? So do you believe that the Soviet invasion of Finland (the relevant topic at hand) was justified? If so, why?
contraryop1 1 year ago
@gukow1 The fact that Molotov and Ribbentrop signed a non-aggression Pact, which divided Eastern Europe into Soviet and Nazi spheres, combined with their cooperation in the invasion of Poland, and increase in trade is reliable indicator of their understanding as allies. The truth can be painful.
Stalin was smarter than Hitler, in letting his Generals do their job after he overruled them constantly in 1941 after exterminating them in the 1930's. Stalin was a despot.
contraryop1 1 year ago
@gukow1 If you want to give the majority of the credit to Stalin versus the Russian people and Allied Nations for defeating Nazi Germany, that is your opinion. I think it cheapens the sacrifice of millions, and borders on worship of Josef Stalin.
contraryop1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gukow1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@contraryop1
What have the Germans in Estonia? You probably confuse 1945 with 1940. In 1940, no problems there. During the Nazi occupation of the Baltic states are very many local residents have cooperated with the Nazis. I mean the extermination of Jews, communists, Soviet partisans, carrying out punitive actions against the inhabitants of Russian villages. Since many of them had hands in the blood, they feared that the Soviet power will come back to Baltic and punish them for those crimes.
gukow1 1 year ago
@gukow1 I agree that Mannerheim saved Finland in 1939-45 (and in 1918), but had he not existed, then someone else would have stepped into his place, albeit perhaps someone with less experience.
FFulmenTheFinnish 1 year ago
At first communists committed crimes against russians in Russia, executing intelligent people and ordinary peasants, who did not want to give their food away. Then soviets had "great idea of world revolution". With nazi-Germany they signed pact of Molotov-Ribbentrop and started WW II. Their goal was spread communism all around the world. You can only think of how many innocent civilians they would have executed all over Europe, if soviets have had been succesful..
CrimesAgainstHumanit 1 year ago
@burnt62 Ah sorry, thought it would've mean the same as occupy.
kaahaajaFIN 1 year ago
@burnt62 too much napoleon total war
neemtee 1 year ago
Sir(s): I say, here, with all my Very Heart, namely, "It is a Good Thing that the Enemy is Never Seen Nowhere as if they all were merely Forest." Just one question, however, "Did they hear and feel the shells firing into their gut?" Thank you.
torstvillinger 1 year ago
@burnt62 Actually USSR never managed to invade Finland.
kaahaajaFIN 1 year ago
Comment removed
MembThePenguinII 1 year ago
And to think the russians were all innocent...bullshit.
themanroom126 1 year ago
great job Finns ! :)
dav4ix 2 years ago 15
bravo to finish people
respect
grumman84 2 years ago 5
Good going 1918 & tupakki & co! Keep it up.
What a list of stuff, tupakki; that's how they were able to...lol. Who knows, without it, our Tom Sawyer here would be singing: Ich bin Russiche Deutsch.
Guy is a joker; so. After you've stated how things are, treat him as a joker that he is.
Unfortunately I must be off: "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep."
Viel Gluck! Moi! Hej do! Iki! Bye!
obuBBubo 2 years ago 4
Stalin was dreaming when he thought he'd repeat his pal's Sudetenland trick on the Mannerheim Line.
Well, people had enough brains not to trust the BORN LIAR. They fought him instead - and remained INDEPENDENT NATION!!
Quote:
"Stalin lost his nerve after the DEFEAT OF OUR TROOPS in the war against Finland...We soon realized that we had bitten off more than we could chew."
(from the memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev)
No victory parade in Helsinki for arrogant Russians as planned (laughs).
obuBBubo 2 years ago 6
Yeah, and in keeping to the pact between the two Moes, Hitler began mass relocation of the ethnic Germans (some 1/2 million) from the Baltic States, ahead of Russia's imminent invasion of the same.
Interesting to note that those who were sold out (Balts and Finns), would later on join forces with the one who sold them out in the first place , to fight against the Butcher and his hordes.
obuBBubo 2 years ago 3
who would teach that only molotov-ribbentrop matters for ww2.
goebbels can heil western education system, thats for sure.
(proftl)
Topic is NOT about ww2, but about Russians invading INDEPENDENT AND NEUTRAL FINLAND unprovoked and without a warning.
And that basis for that invasion is directly linked to Molotov/Ribbentrop pact.
Some folks seem to be hellbent to muddy the waters with their verbosity and ad hominem tirades.
obuBBubo 2 years ago 3
invasion of finland was not a fair one, who'd disagree.
but pact wouldnt exist if your so-called independent nations had more brains than arrogance.
protfl 2 years ago
if by 'arrogance' you mean that they did not want to lose their recently-gained freedom, then yes.
finland and the baltic states were bothering nobody. the ussr picked a fight with them, not the other way around. the baltics didn't want to risk an invasion, so they complied. the finns resisted-- and kept their freedom for the decades to come.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
sure it doesnt if the aim is to blame soviet union in being worse than nazis and to
(proftl)
Actually, aim is to point it out to you that the two bosom buddy hegemonists - Hitler and Stalin - shook hands on invading INDEPENDENT NATIONS; and that they did just that.
If you need proof, watch the video above.
Second point was that, Stalin sanctioned Munich by his own INVASION of INDEPENDENT NATIONS.
Third, that those INDEPENDENT NATIONS had a right to kill Russians.
obuBBubo 2 years ago
Yeah I know. USA helped USSR so much. List:
- 2.5 million tons of petroleum products
- 595 ships, including 28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 trawlers, 22 torpedo boats, 140 anti-submarine vessels and others
- 4,952 Aerocobra and 2,410 Kingcobra fighter jets
- 2700 A-20 and 861 B-25 bomber planes
- Soviet tank divisions received 7,056 tanks, 8,218 anti-aircraft emplacements, 131,600 machine guns and other arms
- 2.3 million tons of steel
- Aluminum 229,000 tons
- 3.8 million tons of food
tupakki 2 years ago
- 23,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations
- oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on
- 15 million pairs of army boots, 23 million yards of cloth
- 1,000 locomotives, 400,000 trucks
- 476,000 tons of super critical AV gas
Most of equipment were shipped at the most critical time of war. By that steel and aluminium Soviet Union was able to build its arms, not without it. Amount of tha steel, 70,000 T-34 tanks were able to build.
tupakki 2 years ago
Following the script by the two Moes, Germans attacked Poland 1.9.39. Russians invaded and annexed Baltic States 39-40, and invaded Finland 30.11.39.
Well, that invasion kinda got frozen in its tracs. LOL
obuBBubo 2 years ago 3
before molotov-ribbentrop there was spanish war, munich treaty, and soviet japanese conflict, just to let you know.
even before hitler, soviet union had interests of helping germany as it could become its potential ally, and not nazi one
(protfl)
Says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING = meaningless gibberish.
Molotov/Ribbentrop agreed to two spheres of influences. Germany would get one part of Poland, Russia the other, the Baltic states and Finland.
The two followed the plan through.
obuBBubo 2 years ago 3
sure it doesnt if the aim is to blame soviet union in being worse than nazis and to make western assholes who made nothing to prevent the war, but made much to provoke it, starting with versailles, it means nothing. we ignore all facts and pick only those that suit our paradigm and voila, we are good, we fight for peace, and everyone around is a bloodthirsty jew or mongolian. nope, moron, in order to survive you have to be ready for a war, because your enemies would not wait for you.
protfl 2 years ago
and every ignored conflict, every time you tolerate aggression, thinking that it might help you in future you help war to turn on you. but this lesson is not to be learnt even, as there are imbeciles from hell knows where who would teach that only molotov-ribbentrop matters for ww2.
goebbels can heil western education system, thats for sure.
protfl 2 years ago
"if we accept germany's proposal about the conclusion of a pact regarding invasion, she will of course attack poland, and france and england's involvement in this war will be inevitable. western europe will be subjected to serious disorders and disturbances. under these conditions, we will have many chances to stay on the sidelines of the conflict, and we will be able to count on our advantageous entrance into the war...
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
it is in the interest in the USSR the motherland of workers that the war unfolds between the Reich and the capitalist anglo-french block. it is necessary to do everything within our powers to make this war last as long as possible, in order to exhaust the two sides. it is precisely for this reason that we must agree to signing the pact, proposed by germany, and work on making this war, once declared, last a maximum amount of time."
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
why would stalin call this quote a lie, if those were his own words?
protfl 2 years ago
Comment removed
obuBBubo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@protfl
why would stalin call this quote a lie, if those were his own words?
Jails are full of murderers who are saying they didn't do it.
obuBBubo 2 years ago 3
heinous criminals almost always deny their guilt.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago 3
~~Josef Stalin, secret Politburo meeting, August 19, 1939
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
Things were working like a clock-work, and Stalin was at his best -murders, deportations, torture, starvation. His usual. However, there was one serious glitch to proceedings, giving Russians a migraine, as recorded in the interview:
Molotov: Unstoppable red-army would've easily conquered Finland in Spring 1940, and in Summer 1944; except our attack was stopped.
Interviewer: Did you stop our attack?
Molotov: No, not I, nor Stalin, but that #@#! Finnish army
obuBBubo 2 years ago
"always so one sided...poor balts consisted only of freedom loving cuties. when nazis came it showed who they really were" (protfl)
Yeah, they were fathers, husbands, brothers and relatives of those who had been murdered or deported during the russian terror of 1939-40.
As to Munich agreement, with Molotov/Ribbetrop, Stalin sanctioned Hitler's previous advances, providing he'd be given the baltics and Finland. Hitler his pal happily agreed, and promptly invaded Poland.
obuBBubo 2 years ago
just like i said, upside down. goebbels was a smart scum.
protfl 2 years ago
Comment removed
obuBBubo 2 years ago
lol, so many cocksuckers from limitroph states.
protfl 2 years ago
hunters are best snipers.
protfl 2 years ago
Communist or not, Russia has always been imperialist.
This bunch of criminals, called the Red Army, only a courageous army when attacked weaker neighbors.
Where was the might and courage when they were driven out of Afghanistan and Finland?
Glory to Finland!
xiruahu 2 years ago 16
1st of all nobody was driven out from afghanistan nor finland. second, i'd like to know examples of russian aggressiveness against weak neighbours except finland. learn history better, brainwashed.
protfl 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Russian soldiers were equally good as Finns, they were just badly led.
Respect to Soviet veterans (and KIA) too.
Kuhlfurst 2 years ago
@Kuhlfurst
no, finns were better soldiers. later in the war, when russians were better led, finns still inflicted grievous defeats on the red army (tali-ihantala).
but the red army's soldiers were still rather good, better than most. their biggest strength was in their numbers.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
Karelia belongs to Finland!
turbogeo1 2 years ago 28
Glory to Finland !
from Georgia
RezoChigogidze 2 years ago 23
@RezoChigogidze The one in the U.S or in europe? cuz im in the U.S. Glory to Finland!
Spankydaham924 1 year ago
Music to my ears. It is good that Red Army failed to occupy Finland because I have read what happend to the Baltic countries and poles and it was not nice what happend to them.
ss90ss444 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Red army could occupie all the country, but it needn't it. All USSR wanted - piece of territory near the Leningrad.
ukukirill 2 years ago
you are 100% wrong.
you have fallen for soviet propaganda attempting to justify imperialism.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago 2
haha, and you'll call people affected by propaganda, when you say about 100% truth and having berlin wall as your wallpaper :) shitty liberal without ideals.
protfl 2 years ago
@protfl
weaker neighbours besides finland: estonia, latvia, lithuania, rumania. not to mention forcing communism upon eastern europe.
my family is from berlin. that is the #1 reason for my bg.
ideals? perhaps you would like others to adopt the ideals of imperialism of the proletariat, the same ideals which drove you to attempt a rather embarrassing invasion of finland.
you seem to think that that is ok. you must then also support the nazi invasion of poland.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
its in context of ww2 and moving borders away, quite weak examples also, as none of them were annexed. also i expected something more, than just ww2 preparations.
poland provoked nazi invasion by blocking soviet-british-french coalition.
protfl 2 years ago
@protfl
estonia, latvia, lithuania, and parts of rumania were annexed. I find it shocking that you don't know that.
yeah, yeah. "moving borders away". utter bullshit if you ask me. similar reasons were given for the invasion of poland which sparked ww2.
as a result of the losses incurred during ww2, the ussr was unable to launch major acts of aggression. the world stage had also changed drastically: nuclear weapons.
afghanistan was a rather sad attempt to re-live the glory days.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
estonia, latvia and lithuania joined soviet union having same rights as any other soviet republic, and soviet gov. spent a lot of money into developing those republics, and they successfully wasted everything after becoming 'independent'... latest example is closed nuclear station in lithuania. bessarabia was REannexed, if you like the word.
ww2 started earlier than poland and could have been prevented, at least with its german part.
what is nato doing in afghan, reliving past of brit empire?
protfl 2 years ago
@protfl
after what happened in finland, the baltic republics really had no choice. they saw what happened if soviet demands were refused, and reluctantly allowed themselves to be annexed so as to prevent war.
when the nazis came through, the baltic region had very high levels of collaboration with them, which shows just how much they loved being part of mother russia again...
after the war, anti-soviet partisan activity continued well into the 1950s (forest brothers).
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
always so one sided...poor balts consisted only of freedom loving cuties. when nazis came it showed who they really were, those antirussian excuses are lame.
lets call red army faction a good thing aswell. anyone who wants to kill you is a good guy, do you agree? basque bombers are also good guys, uck, al quaeda, right?
protfl 2 years ago
the ussr also spent much effort and money in trying to keep the freedom-hungry balts under control by pumping loyal russians into the ssrs.
I suppose this is a question of whether one would rather be a well-fed slave or a hungry free man. I guess we know where you stand.
bessarabia proper is moldovan. moldovans are essentially eastern rumanians.
just because the russian empire had certain territories at some point does not mean that they 'belong' to russia.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
wiser choice is to place military bases instead, i know what you mean.
when did you starve last time, little boy. its so cute when those who are well fed would talk about starving.
just because romania or poland had them does mean the same. on the other hand there are established borders and wanna be ones. if after any war territories reverted back what would be the point of having those wars, russia doesnt claim territories it had never owned, unlike our western smartasses.
protfl 2 years ago
@protfl
it means more who populated those areas. polish eastlands were ethnically mixed, with important polish population centers. bessarabia was majority rumanian.
you may not 'claim' them, but you certainly enjoy controlling them.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
polish eastlands were settled with russians, who were made thinking they are not just because they spoke russian slightly mixed with polish.
and of course nobody would give a fuck about population centers, because nobody would let china-towns, anywhere they are, to join china.
not to say bessarabia was liberated from turks by... brave austrians? romanians? germans? french? so stick your lousy excuses up your ass.
protfl 2 years ago
@protfl
poland blocked nothing. the issue of poland was first raised by none other than the soviets, who wanted to essentially occupy it (revenge for polish-soviet war?).
poland was not a member in the tripartite talks, and as such could not 'block' anything. the western allies were greatly concerned with the fate of poland, as it was regarded as the 'keystone of versailles'. handing its security over to such a questionable entity as the ussr was not a good idea.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
nope, soviet union had responsibilities before czechoslovakia, just like brits and french who fed nazis with it.
poland was an ally of britain and france, successful alliance between them and soviet union depended only on poland, poland chose to be used as cannon fodder, wise decision, i respect poles for that. also soviet union returned only those lands that poland took apart from their versailles borders. and after the war they were given german territory in exchange of this loss.
protfl 2 years ago
the soviet union fed nazi germany much more than did the western allies. the entire western offensive was made possible by generous amounts of soviet raw materials. not to mention the fact that the molotov-ribbentrop pact essentially gave hitler the 'green light' to start the war.
even before hitler, the ussr was helping re-arm germany in defiance of versailles by training pilots and tankers in secret facilities in the ussr.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
before molotov-ribbentrop there was spanish war, munich treaty and soviet-japanese conflict, just to let you know.
even before hitler soviet union had interests of helping germany as it could become its potential ally, and not a nazi one.
protfl 2 years ago
@protfl
doesn't matter shit what happened before the war. what matters is that stalin, seemingly out of nowhere, began supporting nazi aggression.
the ussr both entered and exited the war as aggressor, and soviet leaders should have been tried and hung at nürnberg for crimes against peace.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
lol, it doesnt matter and he started supporting out of nowhere... you must be an idiot?
mb you were born out of nowhere while nothing happened before your mother got pregnant, moron.
i doubt it'd be easy to explain for yanks and brits why did they ally stalin after all. to modern living imbeciles there's no need to explain, they would eat any shit for their breakfast.
protfl 2 years ago
poland did not want their independence to be compromised by soviet occupation. they stood their ground (expecting nonexistent western help) and were torn down by nazis and soviets.
furthermore, nazi-soviet negotiations were begun before the tripartite talks ended. the ussr was exploring an option there, nothing more.
what if america wanted to send troops to occupy, say, moscow or st. petersburg? would you like that?
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
if america wanted to do help people of leningrad under the siege this way, i bet i would love that, but they would never do such, its not in their nature, their wonderful unique lives cost too much.
there was nothing more to discuss at those talks, anything was possible not to let hitler ally france and britain + japan against soviet union... soviet policy was times smarter than polish.
protfl 2 years ago
ugg, lame written... if america did want to help*
but when did they open second front against germany? only after soviet union was already at polish border.
protfl 2 years ago
Actually americans wanted to help you in eastern front against Germany. Stalin was scared that if americans come, he can't take eastern Europe to under its influence so he said no thanks. The biggest scare for Stalin was that Poland will keep its eastern borders if americans help.
tupakki 2 years ago
haha, its not help, its stealing of victory. its like you pay 95% for smth, i give you 5% and own the thing you wanted to buy... please divide help from swindle, lend-lease was practical in its help, not letting soviet union to take berlin and block its influence, especially when it'd mean that britain would still remain in its power, while was of help comparable with french, in cost of 27 million lives of soviet citizens only a pig could agree... its not help...
protfl 2 years ago
in usa you'd spend your life in jail for such help.
protfl 2 years ago
What are you talking there? USA helped you many other ways as well than sending troops in eastern front. You got thousands of vehicles, thousands of air planes (also permission to build american models), tons of food etc. I have the detailed information in book if you want to hear. That's why the railroad of Murmansk was vital for russians. Also the danger of japanese reduce because USA joined the war. You could have relocated troops from that direction to eastern front against Germany.
tupakki 2 years ago
its called lend-lease, and it was mentioned.
protfl 2 years ago
@protfl
france and britain would not have allied with powers directly threatening them. there was NO danger of france and britain allying with nazi germany and japan.
you arguments are at times as ridiculous and repulsive as neo-nazi arguments justifying the holocaust.
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
omg, yes, its said by one of those who would easily ignore UN to start another oil war. fuck off.
protfl 2 years ago
@protfl
this coming from the guy who tries in the most weasel-like ways possible to justify imperialism on the part of the ussr.
"oh it isn't OUR fault that we acted as an aggressor in the second world war. it isn't OUR fault that we aided a regime responsible for heinous crimes against humanity. it was the WEST'S fault for not stopping us, because we have no self-control over our conquering urges!"
MvonRichthofen1918 2 years ago
goebbelsish.
protfl 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a bullshit, Germany and Finland has a plan to attack USSR together. USSR is counterattack Finland. And people like you piece of shit rewriting history.
AndrewPowergo 2 years ago
German was in Finlands side in continuation war. and thats because finland was inportant help for Hitler to take over soviet union. in 1939 germany and soviet union were allies and they had an ugreement to share some europe. including finland which was ment to be USSR's. but the dickface soviets didn't do well against tiny finland. so, what were you talking about rewriting history?
tohtorimakkara 2 years ago
Where the F*** did you learn history? The Putin School for the Horribley Naive?
IlmarBeekman 2 years ago 7
do yanks learn history at all?
protfl 2 years ago
Viva Finland! If Baltic States could fight for his freedom against bolsheviks like You...
aigaris 2 years ago 5
som1 said finland had to gave valuable land to russians? well not valuable enymore :D filled with dead russians and gunpowder
lahd1ne 2 years ago
HAHAH THATS RIGHT WE SHOT YOU ALL FAGS RUSSIAN DICKS my grand father had over 300 kills on that war =)
lahd1ne 2 years ago 3
Fucking ruskies..
panokset 2 years ago 5
Good one. I see an HAPPY END here
HunGayRianPride 2 years ago 5
This guy is telling about BATTLE OF RAATE ROAD where soviet union lost (depending on reference) 17 000 -30 000 men. The soviets union only admitted that a few hundret soldiers were killed in that battle.
Eramiesss 2 years ago
this is also a good example how soviets tried to invade Finland, or as they say "liberate"....Red army has never liberated anybody! Red army invaded Baltic states, invaded Poland...executing many innocent people...
CrimesAgainstHumanit 2 years ago 7
The mad poor Ukrainian pensioner!! Where that proof, what it the veteran of this war? It looks too young! I think it there is a bosh and propagation!
JohnMillimetron 2 years ago
Finish the Soviets! Respect to Suomi soldiers from Poland.
ferdovit 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Soviet Union didnt invade Finland!
Suomizki 2 years ago
relly they just sended 250.000 men for a pickning in karelen ?
nordulven 2 years ago
nope to die
Kossukunkku 2 years ago 2
ofc i knew that :P
nordulven 2 years ago
Yes, they did.
invade = hyökätä
MembThePenguin 2 years ago 3
After all SU started the ww2 as an axies power. Don't forget it in your study of history lessons.
Mussolini once mentioned: "Stalin would be a good facist if he were not so barbarian".
tranmere789 2 years ago 7
turkey cant take over Greece.cause if they try they gonna have severe casualties.dont speak about Greece if u dont know mr smartass
Thrallden 2 years ago
The strange thing with Finland was, that we fought during the WWII twice the Soviet Union and once Germany, and still, we we were never occupied and survived this world war as an independent country.
wovaapeli 2 years ago 7
well that means that u the Finns are True Warriors.one of the few nations that fought against a strong enemy,survived and won its freedom and respect.
Thrallden 2 years ago 10
To those posting the number of soviet casualties... 500 000 was the strenght of the attackforce, not the casualties... Do not go over the roof. It's the same thing as if you said that Finlands army consists of 500 000 men. It's 350 000
setakakki 3 years ago
Long live Finland. The bravery they displayed against the Russians was incredible.
BlueIce137 3 years ago 8
I always wondered how the Finns stayed out of the clutches of the Russians. What a difference if you look at the progress in Finland (and the other western nations) versus that what was controlled by the USSR. And now the USSR wants to repeat the past!
abacab87 3 years ago
nice work suomi guys,you've kickd the russkies ass,justlike we in 1956:) Long live Finland,greetings from Hungary!
Sven1988fromHUN 3 years ago 8
I guess the ruSSians wanted to liberate Finland the same way they did the Baltic countries. In stead they ended up like beautiful frozen statues in the freezing finnish forests!
Danish4ever77 3 years ago 10
vive la creece!!
raippaluoto 3 years ago
Greetings from Greece.i read a book about the Winter War.and i tell u this.Finns are the Spartans of Scandinavia.they fought without fear the "red beast".Hail thee Finns immortal warriors of the North
Thrallden 3 years ago 29
RUSSIAN OFFICER "Well, we've won just enough land to bury our dead." (1939 FINLAND WINTER WAR)
raippaluoto 3 years ago 4
finland winter war soviet union lost over 500.000 death and wounded (105 glory days)
raippaluoto 3 years ago 2
Jesus! What the hell happened up there in WW2? Im a bit embarrased to say I dont know anything about it, can anyone tell me a good book on the subject? Did you side with the Germans because you had no choice?We were fighting Tojo at the time so I dont what happened,seems like you Finns kicked some serious ass!Respect!
anthony9thompson 3 years ago 2
"Frozen Hell" by William Trotter is very good. During the "Winter war" germany was still 'allied' with the soviets so we got no help from them at the time (not much elsewhere either). In the 40-41 period we were faced with the choice either to seek support from Germany or face another Soviet invasion alone - easy pick at the time.
Piett2 3 years ago 3
"The Unknown Soldier" by Väinö Linna which covers the continuating war 1941-1944 is another good book on the subject. He could be compared to Remarque who wrote All quiet on the Western Front. Linna used his experience as a finnish squad leader during WWII to write his book from the perspective of the finnish privates and NCOs.
Danish4ever77 3 years ago 3
Eternal honor and respect to the brave Finns who fought against the Soviet invaders! Like their Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, and Western Ukrainian brothers and sisters, they chose to risk their lives in battle rather than live in slavery.
baltasvilkas 3 years ago
Hear hear, I'll drink to that laddie!
Kan2209 3 years ago 3
hehehe hyvä suomi, keep it up
Kan2209 3 years ago 4
Fucking embarassing, if it wasn't for the Purge and Stalin. The Finns would have fought well in either case. Also, the fucking communists of the early 30s were conservatives, disbanding paratroopers.
All well, it's all history now.
stlouie24 4 years ago
Finland 4ever, fuck ruSSia!!!
suksitis 4 years ago 6
Since declaration of war by the Allies in 1941 Finland has never formally surrendered, LOL!
rlui123 4 years ago 5
to rlui123:
LOL but didn't they disband themselves from the axis towards the end and joined the allies? I might be wrong, in which case what u said is pretty funny XD
goldenchocolate 3 years ago
Nations such as Canada (where I live) is technically STILL at war with Finland. There has never been an armistice between Finland and Canada, Great Britain, etc.
The Soviets did force Finland to sign a treaty at the end of the war. Finland had to give up some valuable land to the U.S.S.R.
rlui123 3 years ago
I live in Canada too :D
In Montréal :D
goldenchocolate 3 years ago
Hello to Montreal!
Finland did not join the Allies, they were forced to fight the Germans when they signed the 1944 Soviet treaty because it was one of the conditions. In return, the Russians would not invade Finland in 1945.
rlui123 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
RUSSIA NO.1 ! ! !
kamuPizdetz 4 years ago
xD HAH.
tupakki 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
just stating the obvious
kamuPizdetz 4 years ago
HAH! You got what the fuck you deserved Russian bastards!!
ChrisRoberts24k 4 years ago 2
The reds had a 4:1 advantage look in wikipedia.
ChrisRoberts24k 4 years ago 2
Advantage of what? If you think whole material and men, they had much more bigger advantage than that.
tupakki 4 years ago 4
The English narrator says that the reds had a 2:1 advantage, in reality they had 4:1 advantage in man power and if we talk tanks and airplanes the odds were insane.
ChrisRoberts24k 4 years ago 4
numbers doesnt tell all.. Russia also had unlimited reserves
pyllywaltteri 4 years ago 6
finland owns
castrewq 4 years ago