Tribute to Finnish Army in World War II

Slideshow.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• finnish
• finland
• army
• suomi
• sotilas
• soldier
• simo
• häyhä
• winter
• war
• continuation
• talvisota
• jatkosota
• tribute
• kp
• 34
• kv
• mannerheim

[PohjolaNorden]

@Imprudentman By the way the Estonian rule was authoritharian until 1939, not pure dictatorship. Konstantin Päts did a coup, when they had a risk that right wing extremist win the elections. So it was more or less saving democracy. But this is an eternal question. Can you do it? Before the war the parties had anyway again a possibility to act nearly without restrictions and they were returning democracy.

[PohjolaNorden]

@Imprudentman Pilsudski was gone before the WW2. Yes there were some dictatorial regiemes and others some degree authoritharian rule also in Europe, but totalitarian countries were only two. The fact that nazi-Germany and SU started the war in Europe is not correct only in Russia, allthough Hitler was more active than Stalin, who was not interested to take any big risks.

[Imprudentman]

@PohjolaNorden This is a slippery historical path. Even among the decrees of the American President Roosevelt, affecting the interests of private farmers and collectivization in the Soviet Union have much in common. Does this mean that all these states are similar to each other, were friends and conducted the same policy? No - the answer is obvious.

[Imprudentman]

@PohjolaNorden The fact is that the present Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as the two totalitarian states started the war is not correct. In Europe there are many dictatorial regimes - such as Hungary, Romania, Italy. Think of the dictatorial regime of Pilsudski in Poland, or the dictatorial regime in Estonia until 1939.

[Imprudentman]

@PohjolaNorden You are right. Russian and Finnish nothing to divide today. I also think that among these nations must be a relationship built on friendship.

[Imprudentman]

@PohjolaNorden It was power politics .... Perhaps you are right. However, in 1940, the year it was the most acceptable option. All the more so that England and France have shown themselves not affluent allies ...

[Imprudentman]

@PohjolaNorden Politics is a tough thing ...

[PohjolaNorden]

@Imprudentman "their policy was cold and calculating" It was pure power politics. And SU got enemies with that policy, for example neutral Finland.

[PohjolaNorden]

@Imprudentman "gained a respite for a while, or stay alone in the face of impending war" That is pure propaganda, often presented. The western allys accepted the alliance with SU even when it did this pact. It´s hard to see anything there, what made SU closer to UK and France. If you say SU bought time, you should understand that also Germany was much stronger in 1941 than it was 1939. And many historians argue that SU in fact lost it credibility, because of their policy and failure in Finland

[PohjolaNorden]

@Imprudentman I have never red Churchill, allthough I know some of his notions of international politics. I have to agree that British and French policy and diplomacy was a failure. They wanted to save the peace in Europe with appeasement with Germany and failed and that led to agreement between totalitarian dictatorships. Germany didn´t care about small countries and was ready sell them to Stalin. Stalin saw the opportunity take benefit there. Of course he was not forced to agreement.