The Petsamo nickel case

[AirdefMike]

1921 a nickel deposit is discovered in Petsamo, Finland. In the 1930s the mining rights are owned by INCO, The International Nickel Company of Canada. The rights are given to INCO's British subsidiary Mond in 1934. During the Interim Peace (1940 - 41) the trust is represented by Petsamon Nikkeli Oy while the British still hold the rights.

During the Interim Peace both Germany and Soviet Union demanded the nickel for their armament industry. The Germans were willing to pay for it. The Soviets weren't.

June 23 1940 Soviet Union starts to show its' interest towards the Petsamo area. Finns are willing to split the production between Germany and SU but the Soviets say no. SU wants all the nickel and the expulsion of all the British personnel from the area.

December 19 A comission is established in Moscow in order to clear the nickel dispute between Finland and SU.

January 29 1941 the Soviets starts negotiating about the nickel. The Finnish ambassador in Moscow, J.K. Paasikivi suggest to the Finnish goverment that the Petsamo area could be traded to Soviet Union.

Because of this Mannerheim threatens to resign but president Ryti manages to keep Mannerheim in office (Petsamo was also an important port for Finland's foreign trade).

February 23 Finland is given a certain date to which the Soviets want Finland to solve the Petsamo case "according to Soviet Union's wishes".

March 27 Wipert von Blucher, the German ambassador informs the Finns that if the nickel negotiations break down, Finns have nothing to worry about.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does the actions of Soviet Union towards Finland rhyme with the Moscow Peace Treaty?

This is a clear case of Stalin getting involved with the Finns and their territorial possessions again.

The Petsamo nickel case is in direct violation against the Moscow Peace Treaty and in my opinion it was Soviet Union who broke the treaty first.

[snebold]

It seems to be Stalinist diplomacy in a nutshell!

never heard about this before, but it fits the pattern so well

[Chevan]

Oh do you like dear AirdefMike to be the finnish nationalist.
OK , how about russian one here;)...
I think i have to remind you how the Pechanega (former Petsamo) region area has been joined to the Finland.
It was a part of russian land since mid centures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenga
The Pechenga area was indigenously inhabited by Samis. In 1533 it became part of Russia (Archangelsk krai and guberniya), in 1920 part of Finland and part of the Soviet Union from 1944
The Pechenega had been cuptured after the pure military action( so called Finnish volunteer expeditions in Russian East Karelia.)
After the Tartu treaty the bolshevics have passed the great russian territory to the finns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tartu_%28Russian%E2%80%93Finnish%29

The treaty confirmed that the Finnish-Soviet border would follow the old border between the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland and Imperial Russia. Finland additionally received Petsamo, with its ice-free harbour on the Arctic Ocean. ..................... Finland also agreed to leave the joined and then occupied areas of Repola (joined to Finland during the Viena expedition) and Porajärvi (joined during the Aunus expedition) in Russian East Karelia

So in fact the Pechenega was a "military booty" for russian areas of Eastern Karelia.
This is not odd that the Soviets were aimed to take back those lands as soon as possible.

....Finns are willing to split the production between Germany and SU but the Soviets say no. SU wants all the nickel and the expulsion of all the British personnel from the area.
This is utopia.
Both the BRits and Soviets did clearly realise that after the beginning of Great war in Europe ONLY Germany would be provided with Petsamo Nickel.( As it actually happend later).
Endeed the Soviets (who had the initial frictions with Brits for Finland )after the German-Finnish attack of USSR - has jined its positions.And Brits soon declared the war to the Finland.
Becouse the Finland began the supplies the Strategical importaint Nicket ( for the entire NAzy military production). that has been used against anti-Nazy coalition.

[AirdefMike]

Me a nationalist? Wrong.

No, I haven't forgotten how Finns came in possession of Petsamo. You seem to always forget that there was a war between Finland and Soviet-Russia until the Treaty of Dorpat. Still, Petsamo was Finnish territory after that.

It's not odd that Su aimed to take those lands back? Lol, Chevy! So, Winter War was all about taking the lost lands back (the whole of Finland) and not about "protecting Leningrad"?

Oh no, Chevy...it wasn't utopia. Just after Winter War (that's the Interim Peace period) the British-Soviet relations were at rock bottom...so the Brits didn't want the Soviets have that nickel...so they ceded the mining rights only after they declared war against Finland (a bit weird because the territory was still Finnish).

Why the Germans were supplied then with the nickel? They bought it. Soviets tried to steal it.

But you really didn't answer the question? Why Soviet Union pestered Finland with continuous demands for lands, towns, ports while there just had been a war between us?

Can you answer that?

Because, SU wanted another war and to conquer the whole of Finland. That's why.

[Chevan]

Me a nationalist? Wrong.

Yes , you have rather clear nationalistic views...

No, I haven't forgotten how Finns came in possession of Petsamo. You seem to always forget that there was a war between Finland and Soviet-Russia until the Treaty of Dorpat. Still, Petsamo was Finnish territory after that.

you absolutly right, it was a first Finnish-soviet war , that have been started by Finnis in 1918.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viena_expedition
The Viena expedition (Finnish: Vienan retkikunta) was a military expedition in March 1918 by Finnish volunteer forces to capture White Karelia (Vienan Karjala) from the forces of Bolshevist Russia. It was one of the many "kinship wars" (Heimosodat) fought near the newly independent Finland during the Russian Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunus_expedition
The Aunus expedition was an attempt by Finnish volunteers to occupy parts of East Karelia in 1919, during the Russian Civil War. Aunus is the Finnish name for Olonets Karelia. This expedition was one of many Finnic "kinship wars" (heimosodat) fought against forces of Bolshevist Russia after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and during the Russian Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Karelian_Uprising
Finnish expeditions to Russian East Karelia and the Russian region of Kola in 1918—1920 (named by Russian historians as First Soviet-Finnish War and in Finland as heimosodat) ended with the signing of the Treaty of Tartu, that fixed the territorial losses of Soviet Russia.

So you have not forgotten how the finns have captured those old Russian lands.very well.
And , just notice, Pechenega was NEVER part of "finish territory" till the 1920.

It's not odd that Su aimed to take those lands back? Lol, Chevy! So, Winter War was all about taking the lost lands back (the whole of Finland) and not about "protecting Leningrad"?

But Airdef , the first military finnish invasion has been started far till the Winter War, in 1918 to the Russian Karelia.
So why the "protecting Leningrad" is the worsen reason to start the compain then the Finnish itäkarjalaisten kansannousu or Heimosodat?

Oh no, Chevy...it wasn't utopia. Just after Winter War (that's the Interim Peace period) the British-Soviet relations were at rock bottom...so the Brits didn't want the Soviets have that nickel...so they ceded the mining rights only after they declared war against Finland (a bit weird because the territory was still Finnish).

Right , so after all, the Brits and Soviets were the ALLIES, and Brits helped them a lot , supplied ( sorry, sold) with airplains and wearpons.
And becouse the Eastern Karelia was NEVER finnish land , the Finns have run away as soon as they could in 1944 out of this "finnish territory";)

Why the Germans were supplied then with the nickel? They bought it. Soviets tried to steal it.

Oh , the gentlemens finns sold the stealed before Russian Nickel to the gentlemens Nazy, who started the whole ww2 to steal and grab the lands.
What's wrong with that?:)
Common Airdefy, don't play a naive here.
The naive nationalist, what could be more ridiculous:)

But you really didn't answer the question? Why Soviet Union pestered Finland with continuous demands for lands, towns, ports while there just had been a war between us?

Can you answer that?

demands of lands, town and ports?
It seems this thread about Pechenega area, right?
So in this case , i have already answered you enough.
Becouse the Finns captured this area befor.
But if you mean the Karelian Isthmus and others, this is whole other thread.

Because, SU wanted another war and to conquer the whole of Finland. That's why.

And killed all the Finns till the last man.....:)

[Fennica]

Yes , you have rather clear nationalistic views...Only nationalistic ¤¤¤¤ here is you.
You could at least try to point out how every finn seems to be a nationalistic stiffhead, but I highly doubt your capabilites in that.

you absolutly right, it was a first Finnish-soviet war , that have been started by Finnis in 1918.There was no Soviet Union there then. Karelia in a whole was far from the hotspots of Russian civil war and the few expeditions were small in numbers and in support. The number of Russians fighting in Finnish Civil war was very much larger.

So you have not forgotten how the finns have captured those old Russian lands.very well.
And , just notice, Pechenega was NEVER part of "finish territory" till the 1920.Petsamo. It's called Petsamo. But Russian nationalistic views seem to demand that all land stolen must be re-named. Like Viipuri.
-I could advice you to take up book and read about Finnish borders during autonomy, during Civil war and after European wide peace, but I know you wont spend any time studying anything we say. It seems you are more than happy to make up history according to your own views.

But Airdef , the first military finnish invasion has been started far till the Winter War, in 1918 to the Russian Karelia.
So why the "protecting Leningrad" is the worsen reason to start the compain then the Finnish itäkarjalaisten kansannousu or Heimosodat?nearly 2000 men in scattered formations without any support(formations which failed to actually accomplish anything) against huge invasion pointed towards total occupation.
It really must hurt your nationalistic Big-Russian heart to know that your forces were sent by the hundreds of thousands, with enormous advantage in materia.. and you failed.

Right , so after all, the Brits and Soviets were the ALLIES, and Brits helped them a lot , supplied ( sorry, sold) with airplains and wearpons.
And becouse the Eastern Karelia was NEVER finnish land , the Finns have run away as soon as they could in 1944 out of this "finnish territory";)Again, healthy dose of real history would be in order here, but you will most likely ignore any information we give..
-From the very early settlements to the late medieval periods, those areas were habited by Finnos, and solely Finnos. Russians from Novgorod and Moscow came into ruling those areas only later, and even then most small Kins did not move from the areas. It is true that they were not part of Finland, nor Häme, but it is also true that Russian have owned those lands only a short time.
-And during Continuation war, we actually halted Soviet invasion. So, there were running aways???

Oh , the gentlemens finns sold the stealed before Russian Nickel to the gentlemens Nazy, who started the whole ww2 to steal and grab the lands.
What's wrong with that?:)
Common Airdefy, don't play a naive here.
The naive nationalist, what could be more ridiculous:)Reason for WW2 lies within the peace of WW1. Don't be a fool any more than you have to.
-You really do have a talent to turn matters upside down and then continue as matters you fabricated were reality.
Now WE stole Nickel, FROM Soviets!!

demands of lands, town and ports?
It seems this thread about Pechenega area, right?
So in this case , i have already answered you enough.
Becouse the Finns captured this area befor.
But if you mean the Karelian Isthmus and others, this is whole other thread."Repeat a lie long enough, it will be remebered as a truth."
Petsamo was our territory, not taken by force. Soviets, in their lust of resouces and land, took it.

And killed all the Finns till the last man.....:)They tried and failed. FAct of the matter is that for every fallen Finnish soldier, ten Soviets had to die. Same goes in tanks and planes. You Baltic fleet was slapped into harbours.
-You might want to read history instead of making yourself look like a Soviet parrot.

[Churchill]

Wow, anger... Some of the stuff is true, but don't get that mad about it. On another note, it seems the Russo-Finnish War is still going on. :mrgreen:

[Chevan]

Oh just look who has come back..
snob Fennica, who did not wish to tell with me in other thread:)
That's nice , now you will be more polite?

Only nationalistic ¤¤¤¤ here is you.
You could at least try to point out how every finn seems to be a nationalistic stiff head, but I highly doubt your capabilites in that.
is every finns stiff head?
So why i should not be the Russian nationalist them?

There was no Soviet Union there then. Karelia in a whole was far from the hotspots of Russian civil war and the few expeditions were small in numbers and in support. The number of Russians fighting in Finnish Civil war was very much larger.

There vere the Russia STILL HERE, always..
And don't play a fool youself, the number of Russians , fighting in finnish civil war was INSIGNIFICANT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War#Red_Guards_and_the_Russian_Army
Although some 60,000 to 80,000 Russian soldiers of the former Tsar's army remained stationed in Finland at the start of the Civil War, the Russian contribution to the Red Guards' cause was to prove negligible. When the conflict began, Lenin tried to commit the Russian army on behalf of Red Finland, but the Russian troops were demoralized and war-weary after years of constant, traumatic defeat against Germany. The majority of the troops had returned to Russia by the end of March 1918. As a result, only 7,000 to 10,000 Russian soldiers participated in the Finnish Civil War, of which no more than 4,000, in separate small units, could be persuaded to fight in the front line. Despite the involvement of a few skilled Russian army officers such as Mikhail Svechnikov, who led the battles in western Finland throughout February 1918, it seems reasonable to assume that the Russian army had no significant influence on the course of the war
BTW the appr 10 000 have not played the so role as the 13 000 of GErmans volunters in in finnish White guards..

Petsamo. It's called Petsamo. But Russian nationalistic views seem to demand that all land stolen must be re-named. Like Viipuri.

How have you called it ??
Pechenega?OK i am agree.
And Viborg is also a good name for city:)

-I could advice you to take up book and read about Finnish borders during autonomy, during Civil war and after European wide peace, but I know you wont spend any time studying anything we say. It seems you are more than happy to make up history according to your own views.

DO you advice...me?
The man who was not able to reading even the English Wiki article( more or less objective) , advices me to read a "book".It's so touching:)
What a book do you mean?
You know , i ve have read a one - the "Finland as occupant in 1941-44" by finnish author Helge Seplalaj.
VEry interesting book.
http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/sepp/sepp0.php
I sincerely advice you:)
But i know " you wont spend any time studying anything we say", right?

It really must hurt your nationalistic Big-Russian heart to know that your forces were sent by the hundreds of thousands, with enormous advantage in materia.. and you failed.
Again, healthy dose of real history would be in order here, but you will most likely ignore any information we give..

Oh it so hurt my nationalistic heart.
You lacky, your "international philanthropic Finnish heart" is not hurted by the simple fact that IT was rather British influence to the Soviets , that make them stoped in the march of 1940 whan almost dead rest of finnish forces have no any ability to resist further.
As well the British and American political pressure in the 1943-44 make Stalin refuse the liberation of FInland:)
But far not eh finnish forces who are capable just to the partisan war in own territory ( in the Russian territory they have been beaten very quickly).
You know how not to be the nationalist, right?

-From the very early settlements to the late medieval periods, those areas were habited by Finnos, and solely Finnos. Russians from Novgorod and Moscow came into ruling those areas only later, and even then most small Kins did not move from the areas. It is true that they were not part of Finland, nor Häme, but it is also true that Russian have owned those lands only a short time.

Oh , short time since the ...1533 till 1920:)
you have very odd sense of time poor finnish parrot.
And BTW those finnost was even the privileged part of Russian society.The RUssian Tsar Nicolas 2 presented them wide authonomy.

-And during Continuation war, we actually halted Soviet invasion. So, there were running aways???

YOU were running away out of the cuptured Eastern Karelia in june 1944.
Less then for few of weeks the Red Army take back all the lands.

Reason for WW2 lies within the peace of WW1. Don't be a fool any more than you have to.

Why should i stop:)?
You play fool enough long time good .


-You really do have a talent to turn matters upside down and then continue as matters you fabricated were reality.

Fabricated matter? In English Wiki.? Are you crazy?
Man you are a real revisionist yourself:)
You have not even noticed- all matter that i used from international articles..


Now WE stole Nickel, FROM Soviets!!

You have stoled Pechenega from Russia then supplied the russian Nickel to the NAzic.
Is it more easy to undertstand ?

"Repeat a lie long enough, it will be remebered as a truth."

Said doctor Hoebbels , the best friend of Fennica:)

Petsamo was our territory, not taken by force. Soviets, in their lust of resouces and land, took it.

NEVER Pechenega WAS YOUR territory:)
Read the WIKI links, dear half-blind finnish pseudo-patriot-antagonist.

They tried and failed. FAct of the matter is that for every fallen Finnish soldier, ten Soviets had to die. Same goes in tanks and planes. You Baltic fleet was slapped into harbours.

Oh so you have a troubles with Arithmetic too.
That's a nice.
The total finnish deads for Winter/continual war -26 000 + 58 000 = 84 000
Soviets perished 126 000 + 200 000 = 326 000.
Hardly 1:4 ,especially if keep in mind the initial lack of soviet Winter experience in the first war.
But you absolutly right the Finnish contribution to Nazy was essential, not just the blocked Baltic fleet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Trench_warfare_1942-1943
Finland's participation in the war brought major benefits to Nazi Germany. The Soviet fleet was blockaded in the Gulf of Finland, so that the Baltic was freed for the training of German submarine crews as well as for German shipping, especially for the transport of the vital iron ore from northern Sweden, and nickel and rare metals needed in steel processing from the Petsamo area. The Finnish front secured the northern flank of the German Army Group North in the Baltic states. The sixteen Finnish divisions tied down numerous Soviet troops, put pressure on Leningrad — although Mannerheim refused to attack — and threatened the Murmansk railway. Additionally, Sweden was further isolated and was increasingly pressured to comply with German and Finnish wishes, though with limited success.




-You might want to read history instead of making yourself look like a Soviet parrot.
So it seems you are an idiot who argue with ..a parrot:)

[Chevan]

Wow, anger... Some of the stuff is true, but don't get that mad about it. On another note, it seems the Russo-Finnish War is still going on. :mrgreen:

I do understand it looks ridiculous:)
Honestly speaking i'm not a nationalist at all. But this is very interesting case to learn the real way of thinking of opponents.
Somethims i give the "nationalistic bailt", this perfectly work for some of our finns:)
They catch the bailt immediatelly..
This is whole stoopid thread that was started by the AirdefMike - this is obvious insolent open finnis nationalism, but you see, the whole problem- they EVEN don't notice the own national biased point!:)
This is becoming clear when i try to play the "Russian nationalist" - the obviously narrow and biased way of thinking.
This is intresting to learn the finns more deeper and compare the both biased contr-points.
So the whole problem is , as i said , the russian nationalism is not a hot actual matter in Russia today, We however have the our points at history events .
but the finns try to present their View of history as a only right and ...objective.
They even deny the some of evident fact of Nazy-Finnish cooperation that mentioned Wiki.This is not something worst , we all have right not to recognize their states as a ScapeGoat for all of World Evill.
And the every country has own dark spots of their past, but do we really need close eyes for own ones?
Joining to this thread , i was aimed to show the stupidity of nationalistic approach at all.
I hope i have realized it, however you right, some of peoples are still in fight:)
This thread is just proves one more - we can't find the understanding , using the OWN nationalic points.
Nationalism is very danger IMO.

[AirdefMike]

This is a stupid thread? :D

This is thread is the 1st one describing events that happened during Interim Peace (meaning just after Winter War has ended and the Moscow Peace Treaty has been signed) between Finland and Soviet Union.

The purpose of these (this one and the later ones) threads is to show Soviet animosity towards Finland and how Finland was pushed into the awaiting arms (no pun intended!) of Germany by hostile Soviet foreign policy.

Thus we will eventually find out why Continuation War started.

I will only use historical facts that are known, it seems to me, in Finland but not in Soviet version of history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chevan thinks that Finns here are somekind of nationalist bunch of ppl.

That's funny since he's reduced to veiled personal attacks instead of well, answering the questions presented which are valid.

So far, Chevan only accuses me/other Finns/this thread of having somekind of (insolent (Chevan's words!)) nationalistic bias...but as usual...he has utterly failed to SHOW WHERE!

His self denial in failing to even nominally recognise certain undeniable historical facts (like Finland being a democracy) to mixing historical events (Finnish - Nazi co-operation) to what really happened and is today known in Western world.

Chevan also ignores the fact that Finnish historians with the invaluable co-operation of Russian historians have made some pretty valuable findings in old Soviet archives.

Chevan's posts concerning Fenno-Russian wars on this forum has very little to do on finding the truth.

The so called "nationalistic baits" are Chevan's only contribution here.

Which is quite sad...really.

The icing on the cake is that Chevan's response to one of the questions in this thread totally contradicts his response in the main thread.

[Chevan]

Oh common AirdefMike now you know the true about me:):D
I do understand the finnish feelings toward the lost Karelians territories indeed.
I m not an enemy of the Finland , believe me.
The Neitral and friendly Finland is the best case for all of us.And we are not interested by the possible finnish joing at NATO ( in fact some of finnish forces pull it into Alliance).And i'm not a fan of Stalin's policy.
He actually made a serious mistakes ( for instance with Joining to the USSR the traditionally hostile Western Ukraine )
I just want to notice you that the Finland and USSR was'n a friends since the Finnish Civil war (BTW where the Finnish White terror even exceeded the Red one).
So we both know that the Finland wasn't really Neitral and could not even be.
Anyway the Finland would join to the anti-russian coalition in future war , thia wasn't a secret for Stalin or somebody else.
And of couse , the GErmany would DO everything to tied the Finland with Axis powers.
Even the Mannerheim did realize the legality of soviet demands for lands in Karelian isthmus. Soviets offered to exchange those strategic importaint for defence of Leningrad lands for the other lands in Karelia.
This was enough rough and wrong , but though...
The purpose of these (this one and the later ones) threads is to show Soviet animosity towards Finland and how Finland was pushed into the awaiting arms (no pun intended!) of Germany by hostile Soviet foreign policy.
That's right.
But you did not even try to describe and understand the Soviets "hostility".
This was actual mutual hostility.
And there is no doubts - the Finland in 1941 would join to the Axis powers not just becouse they want it , but also due to the GErman strong influence .(Don't foirget in the 1939 the GErmans controlled almost all of continental Europe, the British influence was coming to the Zero, and no doubt in this conditions the Finland would join to the Axis)
So in this case - there is no secret for anybody - the Finnish Nickel would inevitably put into the Nazy hands.
So from this prospect the "care" of Soviets and Brits about Petsamo ( in 1939) was very explained.

[Fennica]

Oh just look who has come back..
snob Fennica, who did not wish to tell with me in other thread:)
That's nice , now you will be more polite?I never left..
I will continue to be just as polite as you are.


is every finns stiff head?
So why i should not be the Russian nationalist them?We get crossed when you use Stalinistic history. Which has very little to do with reality.

There vere the Russia STILL HERE, always.."always". Amm, no.
Finnos came here right behind the glacier. Slavic Novgorodians and later Moscowians came to rule Eastern Karelia.
Karelians were allied to Novgorod, and later that area was divided as Catholic Sweden and Orthodox Novgorod claimed own areas.

-Nationalistic Russians are the ones claiming that Karelia, Eastern in particular, has always been theirs, and no-one else has lived there/owned it. "where Russian soldiers boot stomps, becomes Mother Russia" -right?

And don't play a fool youself, the number of Russians , fighting in finnish civil war was INSIGNIFICANT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War#Red_Guards_and_the_Russian_ArmyI f you call 10 000 stong Russians from which 4000 fough, insignificant..
Yet the post Civil war expeditions into Karelia had manpower there around 2000.

BTW the appr 10 000 have not played the so role as the 13 000 of GErmans volunters in in finnish White guards.."German volunteers"??
Where??
Jaegaren, the Backbone of new Finnish Defence Force had less than 2000 men.
German Baltic division was sent to help Finnish in their war, to ensure good relations to Germany. They were no german volunteers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea_Division

How have you called it ??
Pechenega?OK i am agree.
And Viborg is also a good name for city:)Are you going to claim that Russians founded Viipuri? I have heard that one before.

DO you advice...me?
The man who was not able to reading even the English Wiki article( more or less objective) , advices me to read a "book".It's so touching:)
What a book do you mean?
You know , i ve have read a one - the "Finland as occupant in 1941-44" by finnish author Helge Seplalaj.
VEry interesting book.
http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/sepp/sepp0.php
I sincerely advice you:)
But i know " you wont spend any time studying anything we say", right?Thusfar your opinions and writings have given ample evidence that you don't actually have that strong basis for your claims.

Oh it so hurt my nationalistic heart.
You lacky, your "international philanthropic Finnish heart" is not hurted by the simple fact that IT was rather British influence to the Soviets , that make them stoped in the march of 1940 whan almost dead rest of finnish forces have no any ability to resist further.Of course Stalin gave a rats ass about world opinion. Like before the Winter war.
-And since Soviets did not give actual numbers of lost troops/equipment in Winter War, we will have to go by Finnish ones.
-We know our losses in exact numbers.
-It is true that Finns were exhausted. But more important, we were running out of ammo.

As well the British and American political pressure in the 1943-44 make Stalin refuse the liberation of FInland:)So, democratic Republic of Finland needed to be liberated.. Right.
Your assault, which was larger than Normandy, began in summer 1944. I have no idea from where you ripped the -43 into this.

Only reasons Stalin halted the onslaught, were that fact that the front had been stabilized and Troops in the Finnish front were needed in other fronts.

But far not eh finnish forces who are capable just to the partisan war in own territory ( in the Russian territory they have been beaten very quickly).
You know how not to be the nationalist, right?You call mightiest defensive battles in the history of Nordic `Partisan action´??
-That has gotta be the single most arrogant response yet!

I call you nationalistic because you downplay Finnish actions(sometimes ignore them alltogether) while glorify Soviet actions.

Oh , short time since the ...1533 till 1920:)
you have very odd sense of time poor finnish parrot.I wont bother.

And BTW those finnost was even the privileged part of Russian society.The RUssian Tsar Nicolas 2 presented them wide authonomy.
Yet again, fail.
Finns in grand Duchy of Finland were not part of Russian society.
-We were under dircet Tsar rule, but under no other Russian. We had our own Senate, own laws, customs and language.

YOU were running away out of the cuptured Eastern Karelia in june 1944.
Less then for few of weeks the Red Army take back all the lands.This is the spot where situation maps could be in order. Just to point out how painfully overwhelming the Soviets were in numbers and equipment. And it has been mentioned in every history books that once Finnish troops set their foot on own soil, resistance stiffened and eventually grim determination held the Soviets.
-It is mentioned that at first Finns retreated, somtimes frantically. But never without order. That is why units were ready to defend.

Why should i stop:)?
You play fool enough long time good ... I'll let the other crowd decide.

Fabricated matter? In English Wiki.? Are you crazy?
Man you are a real revisionist yourself:)
You have not even noticed- all matter that i used from international articles..Bullocks.
You use very little knowledge, and when you do, you handpick info to fit into your opinion.
-I began to despise you once you claimed that the pic you presented was to show that Finns shot prisoners. Then you went on and said that a woman in a picture was a civilian shot By Finns. After those you went on and said that woman was raped by Finnish troopers.
It really did not matter that I went to check, and came back with the name of the man from whos photoalbum the pic was from, when it was taken and what had happened.
=You have an idea, and then you try to sell the idea as a reality. =Fabricate.

You have stoled Pechenega from Russia then supplied the russian Nickel to the NAzic.
Is it more easy to undertstand ?Petsamo came to Finland when Finns got independence.
-Soviets tried to get the ore through war.=steal.
-After the Continuation War had begun, the only one willing/able to buy ore was Germany.
-After the WW2, Soviets had been succesful in stealing the mines.

Said doctor Hoebbels , the best friend of Fennica:)See, this is yet another personal insult, in which you try so hard to press Finns into nazis.
-Epic fail.

NEVER Pechenega WAS YOUR territory:)
Read the WIKI links, dear half-blind finnish pseudo-patriot-antagonist.Read the above.

Oh so you have a troubles with Arithmetic too.
That's a nice.
The total finnish deads for Winter/continual war -26 000 + 58 000 = 84 000
Soviets perished 126 000 + 200 000 = 326 000.
Hardly 1:4 ,especially if keep in mind the initial lack of soviet Winter experience in the first war.And thanks to the talent of Soviet archives, we have no actual knowledge of the Soviet losses during Winter WAr. (And I was talking about Winter war there.. but good thing that did not bother to take heed)

But you absolutly right the Finnish contribution to Nazy was essential, not just the blocked Baltic fleet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Trench_warfare_1942-1943


So it seems you are an idiot who argue with ..a parrot:)Here we are again, Chevan trying so hard to show that Finns would have been nazis.
-Try to understand that Baltic Fleet blocked, gave Finnish merchant ships a chance. And our long coast was safe.

[Fennica]

I do understand the finnish feelings toward the lost Karelians territories indeed.Indeed? That is rather hard to believe.
Finns don't trust Russians. In recent survey Russians were listed as "untrustworthy" by the Finns.

You understand how to give new homes to 420 000 Karelians in a small nation which has fought so hard to keep her independece.
Small nation burdened by losses of war and demand of war reparations to pay to the very nation which stole land and ore and actually started the war in the first place.
-To accomplish all that alone.

I honestly cannot imagine that you could understand such injustice.

I m not an enemy of the Finland , believe me.You just try to paint us as nazis and quilty of starting wars.

The Neitral and friendly Finland is the best case for all of us.And we are not interested by the possible finnish joing at NATO ( in fact some of finnish forces pull it into Alliance).NATO would give a rats ass if Finland would face yet another invasion. Even part of NATO, we'd be deemed as expendable.

And i'm not a fan of Stalin's policy.
He actually made a serious mistakes ( for instance with Joining to the USSR the traditionally hostile Western Ukraine )Yet you follow Stalins history. Yet you defend his actions.

I just want to notice you that the Finland and USSR was'n a friends since the Finnish Civil war (BTW where the Finnish White terror even exceeded the Red one).Fail.
Red Terror came first. The ongoing war simply prevented Reds from killing and forced them to battle. Reds even planned to level Helsinki to the ground. But when they tried, they faced a shock; Very brave group of men had disabled all Viaporis Guns. Helsinki would have been a smoking ruin in four hours.
White terror was wrong and a shame, but it is healty to remember what would have happeded in the hands of Reds.

So we both know that the Finland wasn't really Neitral and could not even be.Thanks to Soviet Union.

Anyway the Finland would join to the anti-russian coalition in future war , thia wasn't a secret for Stalin or somebody else.
And of couse , the GErmany would DO everything to tied the Finland with Axis powers.Understandable, as Finnish front was close to st.Petersburg and ideal staging area. Only problem was that Finns did not want to annihilate the City. And did not take orders from Germany.

Even the Mannerheim did realize the legality of soviet demands for lands in Karelian isthmus.Nope. He understood that if Soviets will not get what they want, they will try to take it by force. And Mannerheim knew the sorry state of FDF.

Soviets offered to exchange those strategic importaint for defence of Leningrad lands for the other lands in Karelia.
This was enough rough and wrong , but though...And if one looks at the demands, it would have meant loss. Huge military base next to Helsinki, whatever fortifications there was in the Isthus lost without a shot...

That's right.
But you did not even try to describe and understand the Soviets "hostility".
This was actual mutual hostility.???

And there is no doubts - the Finland in 1941 would join to the Axis powers not just becouse they want it , but also due to the GErman strong influence .(Don't foirget in the 1939 the GErmans controlled almost all of continental Europe, the British influence was coming to the Zero, and no doubt in this conditions the Finland would join to the Axis)British had no influence to Finland. Why do Russians always think this is beyond me. Some Red Russians still call Mannerheim line as "mannerheim-Kirke line".

So in this case - there is no secret for anybody - the Finnish Nickel would inevitably put into the Nazy hands.
So from this prospect the "care" of Soviets and Brits about Petsamo ( in 1939) was very explained.The British planned to claim Swedish iron ore aswell and invaded Norway because of it. Norway had already been invaded by Germans to prevent Brits and to secure ore transportation, but Brits had their own agendas to push.

[Chevan]

Indeed? That is rather hard to believe.

It's not so hard if put away the nationalistic prejudices.
I've done it, now your turn..

Finns don't trust Russians.
In recent survey Russians were listed as "untrustworthy" by the Finns.

That's WHOLE the problem.You see.
You don't understand the russians , therefore you cant trust them..
The lack of trust creats a many problems for all of us.

You understand how to give new homes to 126 000 Karelians in a small nation which has fought so hard to keep her independece.

Well i suppose to get them back to Karelia sould be a good decision.
But if we will look at the 1940.
Do you think that the better way would be if Karelians perished in new Civil Bloody war , that would inevitable when Red were coming here?

Small nation burdened by losses of war and demand of war reparations to pay to the very nation which stole land and ore and actually started the war in the first place.
-To accomplish all that alone.

Agree. Finns suffered alot.
But i hope you will not assert that the finnish suffering exceed the other nations ill?
I've told already that the Leningrad lost half of their pre-war population. German's cities lost also a pretty much people's lives.
The every country suffer a lot.
So hardly you can point that Finns were especial, right.

I honestly cannot imagine that you could understand such injustice.

Oh i can't .
Especially if keep in mind the suffering the civils during the war, war crimes and other nasty things.
I've told you already - i/m actually not a nationalist, but i knew a lot about finnish relation toward russians due our hot battle here:)

You just try to paint us as nazis and quilty of starting wars.

No actually you weren't Nazic:)
But .... you have helped them alot.
Even if this had happend against your will.

NATO would give a rats ass if Finland would face yet another invasion. Even part of NATO, we'd be deemed as expendable.

Not sure i've understood you here.

Yet you follow Stalins history. Yet you defend his actions.

Oh common, the Stalins history is not really actual in Russia.
And i never defended his "deeds", but i tryed to explain why he acted in such way..
Do you feel the difference?
Finaly it was Stalin who lead us to war with Germany, but , it was't just his guilt, and he at least try to move the beginning of the war.

Fail.
Red Terror came first. The ongoing war simply prevented Reds from killing and forced them to battle. Reds even planned to level Helsinki to the ground. But when they tried, they faced a shock; Very brave group of men had disabled all Viaporis Guns. Helsinki would have been a smoking ruin in four hours.
White terror was wrong and a shame, but it is healty to remember what would have happeded in the hands of Reds.

Awesone explanation.And right...from finnish point.
But really the Terror has come outside?
Look at the explanation of reasons of Civil war in Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_in_Finland
Defeat in World War I and the February and October Revolutions in 1917 caused a total collapse of the Russian Empire, and the destruction in Russia resulted in a corresponding breakdown of Finnish society during 1917. The Social Democrats on the left and conservatives on the right competed for the leadership of the Finnish state, which shifted from the left to the right in 1917. Both groups collaborated with the corresponding political forces in Russia, deepening the split in the nation.[3]

As there were no generally accepted police and army forces to keep order in Finland after March 1917, the left and right began building security groups of their own, leading to the emergence of two independent armed military troops, the White and Red Guards. An atmosphere of political violence and fear grew among the Finns. Fighting broke out during January 1918 due to the acts of both the Reds and Whites in a spiral of military and political escalation. The Whites were victorious in the ensuing war. In the aftermath of the 1917–18 crisis and the Civil War, Finland passed from Russian rule to the German sphere of influence. The conservative senate attempted to establish a Finnish monarchy ruled by a German king, but after the defeat of Germany in World War I, Finland emerged as an independent, democratic republic.[4]

So , honestly speakind , i doubt that the Red Terror had started first.
The Civil War in Finland was just a part of Big Civil war in Russia.
The mutual teror has began at the moment and eveywhere.It comes from NOWHERE.
And both sides made a lot of crimes.
And if you will so kind, you might learn from this article that the GErmans participation were in more scale then the soviet.

Understandable, as Finnish front was close to st.Petersburg and ideal staging area. Only problem was that Finns did not want to annihilate the City. And did not take orders from Germany.

I never thought you got the orders from Germany.
But finnish army benefited them a lot.
This is not my trolling words. this is statement from Wiki.
If you think this is wrong or lie , you have right to correct this article if you have an reliable sources.

Nope. He understood that if Soviets will not get what they want, they will try to take it by force. And Mannerheim knew the sorry state of FDF.

You right.
Mannerheim knew it perfectly.
And he knew WHY it would happend.

And if one looks at the demands, it would have meant loss. Huge military base next to Helsinki, whatever fortifications there was in the Isthus lost without a shot...

Yes it mean the loss, but this lost had a critical meaning for second lardest Soviet city.
The importaince for the SU was much more then for the Finland. At the end , finns could presented their conditions of exchange the territories.We could at least discuss this question.
But fins have refused this idea at all,have not they?

British had no influence to Finland. Why do Russians always think this is beyond me. Some Red Russians still call Mannerheim line as "mannerheim-Kirke line".

Sure they have no influence at Finland in 1940, becouse Germans captured controlled almost whole western and Central Europe in this time.
But Brits still have the influence on USSR, threating them by force ( bombing the Caucaus oil fields)
But the main problem was the GErmans super-activity to join the Finland to the Axis.
They finaly have succesfully reached it.

The British planned to claim Swedish iron ore aswell and invaded Norway because of it. Norway had already been invaded by Germans to prevent Brits and to secure ore transportation, but Brits had their own agendas to push.
Absolutly right.
Becouse the Sweden ore ( as well as and finnish Nickel) could be taken by Germans ( as later happaned).
You have to realize - both Soviet and Brits had no any will to let GErmans cupture so importaint materials befor the Great war.
This was a reason of Soviet "insolent" demands during the Interim Peace.The evrybody seen how the Finland were going to the GErman's embraces.( as the almost whole Central Europe already was)
GErmans just used the propogandic matter of "defending Norvay from Britain" to use it for themself:)

[Chevan]

- once you claimed that the pic you presented was to show that Finns shot prisoners. Then you went on and said that a woman in a picture was a civilian shot By Finns. After those you went on and said that woman was raped by Finnish troopers.
It really did not matter that I went to check, and came back with the name of the man from whos photoalbum the pic was from, when it was taken and what had happened.
Back to photos.
This is still interesting to me.
So have you an another explanation of what was happend in this photo of executed russians?

[Fennica]

It's not so hard if put away the nationalistic prejudices.
I've done it, now your turn..

That's WHOLE the problem.You see.
You don't understand the russians , therefore you cant trust them..
The lack of trust creats a many problems for all of us.If only you would have put aside prejudice ideas.
I am bringing them back because of your words.
We see Russians as untrustworthy because you do have different set of ideas about honesty. (Your Miliisi compared to our police as an example..)

And you keep presenting non-truths from Soviet era.

Well i suppose to get them back to Karelia sould be a good decision.
But if we will look at the 1940.
Do you think that the better way would be if Karelians perished in new Civil Bloody war , that would inevitable when Red were coming here?...what??
...what??

-OK, first off, I meant to type 420 000 karelians.(out of 4,1 million Finns).

I have no idea where you managed to pull Reds into this, and I honestly cannot understand why you speak of Karelians going back to Karelia. Then they would have submitted themselves to Soviet rule!!!
Us Karelians fled because of that reason alone.
And from where did the `Civil war´ came into this?

Agree. Finns suffered alot.
But i hope you will not assert that the finnish suffering exceed the other nations ill?
I've told already that the Leningrad lost half of their pre-war population. German's cities lost also a pretty much people's lives.
The every country suffer a lot.
So hardly you can point that Finns were especial, right.Germans were split in half. Soviet did untold damage to them then. THey lost everything.
But reconstruction was helped on both sides of the Germany. We got nothing. Only paid to the one who gave us all the suffering.
-I say that is adding insult to the pain.

Soviets gained immensly in the end. Control over all of Eastern Europe and annihilation of Germany.

Oh i can't .
Especially if keep in mind the suffering the civils during the war, war crimes and other nasty things.
I've told you already - i/m actually not a nationalist, but i knew a lot about finnish relation toward russians due our hot battle here:)Fair enough.

No actually you weren't Nazic:)
But .... you have helped them alot.
Even if this had happend against your will.They were also the only one to turn to.
I doubt that Yanks could be said to be communist, despite they were allied to you.

Not sure i've understood you here.Just that NATO is non-issue with me. I don't like it, nor do I trust it.

Oh common, the Stalins history is not really actual in Russia.
And i never defended his "deeds", but i tryed to explain why he acted in such way..
Do you feel the difference?
Finaly it was Stalin who lead us to war with Germany, but , it was't just his guilt, and he at least try to move the beginning of the war.Hmm, when I say "stalins history", it means the fabricated numbers, the events which did not happen or events which have been twisted so hard, they no longer look like they were.
-One example is the "mainila shots." (Just one of many examples.)

Awesone explanation.And right...from finnish point.
But really the Terror has come outside?
Look at the explanation of reasons of Civil war in Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_in_FinlandTerror came from injustice within that times society. From inside.
Reds started the killings, targeting "upper class" people and eventualy anyone whom they thought might have been part of higher status.
Whites showed no mercy as they killed the Red Guard members, sometimes through executions, sometimes by letting them starve.
-Point was that Red Terror came first and White terror was a result from that.

In the end Reds had real reasons to rebel, and society was made better after Civil War, granting justice to all.

So , honestly speakind , i doubt that the Red Terror had started first.
The Civil War in Finland was just a part of Big Civil war in Russia.
The mutual teror has began at the moment and eveywhere.It comes from NOWHERE.
And both sides made a lot of crimes.
And if you will so kind, you might learn from this article that the GErmans participation were in more scale then the soviet.
-First off; After Russia fell into chaos, Finns realized that it was time to become independent. Finland had very separate and own Civil War which had little to do with Russian Civil War.(Reds against Whites, that was the same.)

German Baltic Division was sent to help to fight against Reds, and they did a very good job in that.(being trained soldiers with good equipment)
By sending this help, Germany hoped to create an Allie from the North, but Kaisers Germany fell soon thereafter, so aid did not have the desired affect in the end.
Soviets were nowhere near. Red Russians were not under the Soviet flag, if I remember correctly. They were mearly Reds.

But Soviets had hoped that Finland would join Soviet Union on their own.

I never thought you got the orders from Germany.
But finnish army benefited them a lot.
This is not my trolling words. this is statement from Wiki.
If you think this is wrong or lie , you have right to correct this article if you have an reliable sources. Benefits were great. Someone to trade with and someone willing to sell weapons, albeit weapons gained from beaten enemies.
Also, the trading vessels were a lot safer.

"enemy of my enemy"- is most suited in this case.

You right.
Mannerheim knew it perfectly.
And he knew WHY it would happend.Because Soviets demanded strategically important areas. Because similar demands had been presented to all Soviet neigbours.
He knew Russian mindset, being a Russian trained officer and chevalier. Also, he viewed St.Petersburg as his home.
-Many times Mannerheim pleaded Finnish goverment to give more funds to the military, every time he was ignored.

Yes it mean the loss, but this lost had a critical meaning for second lardest Soviet city.
The importaince for the SU was much more then for the Finland. At the end , finns could presented their conditions of exchange the territories.We could at least discuss this question.
But fins have refused this idea at all,have not they? Finland was a young as an independent nation. That is the most likely reason for denying all territorial exhange.
THey also felt that SU had no right to claim such things.(this is as Finnish as it gets)

Mannerheim would have given into some claims, just to buy more time. The demands SU did were utterly unreasonable to begin with; "Give us this!"
-The military base next to Helsinki also hinted that demands would not end, and that threat of enemy force next to capital city would be too much.

Sure they have no influence at Finland in 1940, becouse Germans captured controlled almost whole western and Central Europe in this time.
But Brits still have the influence on USSR, threating them by force ( bombing the Caucaus oil fields)
But the main problem was the GErmans super-activity to join the Finland to the Axis.
They finaly have succesfully reached it.Imagine that you have a hostile giant next to you, which tells you how to run your own nation and threats all the time. This is what the intermin Peace was like.
THen another Giant comes and says that he is about to attack the hostile giant...

Absolutly right.
Becouse the Sweden ore ( as well as and finnish Nickel) could be taken by Germans ( as later happaned).
You have to realize - both Soviet and Brits had no any will to let GErmans cupture so importaint materials befor the Great war.
This was a reason of Soviet "insolent" demands during the Interim Peace.The evrybody seen how the Finland were going to the GErman's embraces.( as the almost whole Central Europe already was)
GErmans just used the propogandic matter of "defending Norvay from Britain" to use it for themself:)Not taken, but bought. There is a difference. Germans were wililng to buy.
As always, resources are the key factor in wars, so iron Mines of Sweden and Nickel mines of Finland were a factor.
-But Soviets claim was unreasonable in every way.

Britain and Frances "help" during Winter War was not aimed to help Finland against SU, but to secure Iron of Sweden. That is why they announced to help Finns; to get a passage to Sweden.
Fortunate for Finns, Stalin thought that Western Allies might actually intervene and ended the war.

[Chevan]

If only you would have put aside prejudice ideas.
I am bringing them back because of your words.
We see Russians as untrustworthy because you do have different set of ideas about honesty. (Your Miliisi compared to our police as an example..)

So in you rmind the average finn is more honest then the awerage russian one?
Is it not sort of rasism?

-OK, first off, I meant to type 420 000 karelians.(out of 4,1 million Finns).

I have no idea where you managed to pull Reds into this, and I honestly cannot understand why you speak of Karelians going back to Karelia. Then they would have submitted themselves to Soviet rule!!!
Us Karelians fled because of that reason alone.
And from where did the `Civil war´ came into this?

Is not you the man who wrote that during the Finnish civil war the White terror have no marcy for the Red guard and their supporters?
SO why do yo think that the Soviets , backing to the Eastern Karelia will more kind toward YOUR KArelians?
SO in the end the the push them out was more human decision then to let the new Civil war be started.

Germans were split in half. Soviet did untold damage to them then. THey lost everything.

It was a Allied decision ( not the Soviets) to split the GErmany.
And hardly they lost as much as the USSR ( 25 mln of lives).
At least the Germany has been saved as a Nation. Great NAtion that today is among EU.
I doubt the many states and nation could be saved in a case if Nazic won the war.
remember about it.
The many peoples and ethnical groups could be annihilated LITERALLY.

But reconstruction was helped on both sides of the Germany. We got nothing. Only paid to the one who gave us all the suffering.
-I say that is adding insult to the pain.

This is not true that you got nothing.
The Finland got a great investition due to the right foreigh policy.
The Finish goods have been welcomed in the both West and Eastern markets , and west even compete with Soviets for influence at Finland via the economical yieldings.
Finlans benefited a lot of this situation.
The whole half of Soviet printing industry have been printed on the finnish paper.This is much better then so called "reconstruction " in GErmany.

Soviets gained immensly in the end. Control over all of Eastern Europe and annihilation of Germany.

Oh so GErmany have been annihilated?:)


They were also the only one to turn to.
I doubt that Yanks could be said to be communist, despite they were allied to you.

But Yanks were in Allied sade and made a hell of job for our common Victory.
Their were no COMMUNIST , but they were our ALLY.
Like the Finland for the GErmany till the 1944.
Now you feel the difference.

Just that NATO is non-issue with me. I don't like it, nor do I trust it.

Good. SO we have a points for future agreements and good relations.

Hmm, when I say "stalins history", it means the fabricated numbers, the events which did not happen or events which have been twisted so hard, they no longer look like they were.
-One example is the "mainila shots." (Just one of many examples.)

Therefore i never USED a Stalinist figures.
The All figures that i used were from Wiki or from the Norway press ( the Egorka linked).Or from the Russian archives that as you might remember- enough well correspond to the finnsih ones ( as we saw it in a statistic of lost aircraft during the Winter war)

Terror came from injustice within that times society. From inside.
Reds started the killings, targeting "upper class" people and eventualy anyone whom they thought might have been part of higher status.
Whites showed no mercy as they killed the Red Guard members, sometimes through executions, sometimes by letting them starve.
-Point was that Red Terror came first and White terror was a result from that.

Hard to say what terror come first indeed.
During the civil war, the White Army and the Red Guards both perpetrated acts of terror. According to earlier views, both sides had agreed to certain rules of engagement, but violations occurred from the start, most notably when Red Guards executed 17 troops at Suinula village on 31 January, and when White Army soldiers executed 90 troops at Varkaus on 21 February. After these incidents, both sides began carrying out revenge executions at local level, a trend which escalated to massacres and terrorism.[
SO hardly the White terror was an "equivalent" answer.
The Whites shared the terorr very well.
Beside there were a certain differences at a teror at all.
The Red Guards executed those they considered the main leaders of White Finland or as class enemies, including industrialists, politicians and major landowners. The two major sites of the Red terror were Toijala and Kouvola; there 300-350 Whites were executed between February and April 1918. The White Guards executed Red Guard and party leaders and those who participated in the war and Red terror. During the peak of the White terror, between the end of April and the beginning of May, 200 Reds were shot per day. The White terror hit particularly strongly the Russian soldiers who fought with the Red Guards.[
SO if Reds killed the "class enemies" then the Whites murders had the ethnical orientation .
The WHite killed firstly the Russians.
Anyway the White terror exceed it in times.

In the end Reds had real reasons to rebel, and society was made better after Civil War, granting justice to all.


-First off; After Russia fell into chaos, Finns realized that it was time to become independent. Finland had very separate and own Civil War which had little to do with Russian Civil War.(Reds against Whites, that was the same.)

But it wasn't legitime reason to capture the part of Russian terriroty in 1920-21, right?

German Baltic Division was sent to help to fight against Reds, and they did a very good job in that.(being trained soldiers with good equipment)
By sending this help, Germany hoped to create an Allie from the North, but Kaisers Germany fell soon thereafter, so aid did not have the desired affect in the end.[/
quote]
Now we see where the finish-german cooperation come from.
Actually you both two natural allies.
Born to be the allies:)
Even as you mention the germans with honor.
[quote]
Soviets were nowhere near. Red Russians were not under the Soviet flag, if I remember correctly. They were mearly Reds.

If you remember- they were mostly Finns.
The russians were no MORE the 10 000 among the 90 000 of the Red Guard.
and you killed your Kins very well.

But Soviets had hoped that Finland would join Soviet Union on their own.

And why the Finland should be joined to the USSR?
To start the new civil war , again?
Don't yo think the Stalin was an idiot who don't remember the strong finnish resistense to the Reds in 1918-1919?

Benefits were great. Someone to trade with and someone willing to sell weapons, albeit weapons gained from beaten enemies.
Also, the trading vessels were a lot safer.

"enemy of my enemy"- is most suited in this case.

Right, so "friend of my enemy" Finland describes a lot in SOviet external policy during the 1939-40.

Because Soviets demanded strategically important areas. Because similar demands had been presented to all Soviet neigbours.

Not to all of SOviets neighbourgs, this is wrong.
As i know the China have not received nothing simular:)
The only areas of former russian impare have been demanded. Like Western Ukraine , cuptured by Poland in 1920 due tho the failures of bolshevics policy and Bessarabia.
And the Finland that got the Pechenega as a "military booty" in 1920.


Finland was a young as an independent nation. That is the most likely reason for denying all territorial exhange.

Why.
In this case the young nation show the good will toward neighbourd and undertstanding of thier points.
Soviets suggested not bad ex-change in sense. More then twice squares lands should be passed to Finland .


Imagine that you have a hostile giant next to you, which tells you how to run your own nation and threats all the time. This is what the intermin Peace was like.

THen another Giant comes and says that he is about to attack the hostile giant...

Especially if Another Giant make to you the suggestion that you can't refuse, right:)
He says - join with me in war against the hostile Giant or be oocuped?
So you have no choise, right?
This is your point?

[Chevan]

Not taken, but bought. There is a difference. Germans were wililng to buy.

Sorry to remind you, but sometimes you have to watch what to sell and to whom.
The NAzy GErmany who was aimed to annihilate the whole certain peoples is not a good trade "partner".
The Finnsh Nickel helped the GErman a lot during the war.
Just a little example.
When in the 1944 the GErmans started to have a shortage of Nickel the German newest jet fighters couldn't fly with enjeens Jumo003 becouse of the lack of Nickel don't let them be the reliable.
It saved a lot of lives of allies pilots.

As always, resources are the key factor in wars, so iron Mines of Sweden and Nickel mines of Finland were a factor.
-But Soviets claim was unreasonable in every way.

Exactly, the resorses are everything in the total war.
And there is no doubt without Finnish Nickel, Romanian oil and Sweden Ore the GErmans war mashine was not able to wage the war so long time.
And EXACTLY from this point the Soviets demands were absolutly reasonable.
Just look at the things- if Even Finland refused the "GErmans friendship" in the 1940-41 and clearly point to be the neitral in the war- would GErmans let you to do it?
HArdly.
the most probable case- the GErmany finally occuped the Finland ( as they did with Norway - this is your words) and finally all the Finnish strategic resources and territories fall down into the Nazy hands.
So could , in your mind, the Stalin simply observe as the GErmany captured the Finland with former russian Pechenega/Petsamo and others importaint territories?
Really SU should do nothing to prevent it?

Britain and Frances "help" during Winter War was not aimed to help Finland against SU, but to secure Iron of Sweden. That is why they announced to help Finns; to get a passage to Sweden.
Fortunate for Finns, Stalin thought that Western Allies might actually intervene and ended the war.

But then they succesfully have impressed and deceived Stalin, right?So they helped the Finland though.
And i hope yu willnot deny the fact that Britain and USA only "secured Iron of Sweden" when pressed Stalin save Finland out of liberation in 1944-45?
P.S. have you watched the Hokkey Cup final yesterday?
The Canada-Russia :4-5
Amazing, excellent game, i don't remember something simular for last couple of years.
This is just prove the old proverb - if we win the finns, nobody can stop us further:)

[AirdefMike]

[QUOTE=Chevan;124926]Sorry to remind you, but sometimes you have to watch what to sell and to whom.

Should Finns have sold the nickel to the Soviets...who even weren't willing to buy it in the first place? Don't be so naive again.

The NAzy GErmany who was aimed to annihilate the whole certain peoples is not a good trade "partner".

Neither was Soviet Union who aimed to conquer Finland.

The Finnsh Nickel helped the GErman a lot during the war.
Just a little example.
When in the 1944 the GErmans started to have a shortage of Nickel the German newest jet fighters couldn't fly with enjeens Jumo003 becouse of the lack of Nickel don't let them be the reliable.
It saved a lot of lives of allies pilots.

Not really Finland's fault was it?

Exactly, the resorses are everything in the total war.
And there is no doubt without Finnish Nickel, Romanian oil and Sweden Ore the GErmans war mashine was not able to wage the war so long time.

The Soviet Union had plenty of resources and still looked to conquer its' neigbours.

And EXACTLY from this point the Soviets demands were absolutly reasonable.
Just look at the things- if Even Finland refused the "GErmans friendship" in the 1940-41 and clearly point to be the neitral in the war- would GErmans let you to do it?
HArdly.

Speculation. Finland was/is a democratic nation. Therefore Finland was an ideological enemy of SU and Nazi Germany. That's why the Germans sold Finland to the Soviet sphere of influence (nice way to put...to be conquered actually). Finland wasn't neutral in the end because of Soviet actions.

the most probable case- the GErmany finally occuped the Finland ( as they did with Norway - this is your words) and finally all the Finnish strategic resources and territories fall down into the Nazy hands.
So could , in your mind, the Stalin simply observe as the GErmany captured the Finland with former russian Pechenega/Petsamo and others importaint territories?
Really SU should do nothing to prevent it?

The most probaple case would have been that the Finnish army would have resisted any German invasion...like it did against Soviet invasions.

In the end it wasn't Germany who attacked...it was the Soviets.


But then they succesfully have impressed and deceived Stalin, right?So they helped the Finland though.
And i hope yu willnot deny the fact that Britain and USA only "secured Iron of Sweden" when pressed Stalin save Finland out of liberation in 1944-45?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here?

P.S. have you watched the Hokkey Cup final yesterday?
The Canada-Russia :4-5
Amazing, excellent game, i don't remember something simular for last couple of years.
This is just prove the old proverb - if we win the finns, nobody can stop us further:)

Yup! Great game it was. Congrats for the gold.

[Warpig]

Chevan ignoring your soviet inherited point of view on history of Europe, Russia did what it did not to deny resources to the Germans nor to aid the allies, russian goverment simply wanted to bully a smaller nation for a valuable resource, everything else was a side advantage.

[Chevan]

Gentlemens
I don't know why at my posts, adressed to the Fennica is answered by the AirdefMike and vice versa
May be the Fennica/AirdefMike is the same person:)?
It's really amazing how you guys mixs my posts, participating in thread according turn:)


Should Finns have sold the nickel to the Soviets...who even weren't willing to buy it in the first place? Don't be so naive again.

Neither was Soviet Union who aimed to conquer Finland.

I'm a naive....:)
Never was one.
As i remeber the Finland had a port - so you can trade with Britain, USA, elsewhere?
Why did you sold the Nickel only to Germans?


The Soviet Union had plenty of resources and still looked to conquer its' neigbours.

Yes the USSR and the allies had enough resourses.
But really is this a reason to provide the Nazy, who killed so many peoples with Nickel only " becouse the USSR had it"?
May be there were a other REASONS why Finland so carefully trade with GErmany?
Blackmail?

Speculation. Finland was/is a democratic nation. Therefore Finland was an ideological enemy of SU and Nazi Germany. That's why the Germans sold Finland to the Soviet sphere of influence (nice way to put...to be conquered actually). Finland wasn't neutral in the end because of Soviet actions.

And what was not a democratic nation?
Germany?
As may be you know Hitler come to power absolutly legally via the national elections.( to the contrast of the White Finns and Bolshevics cuptured the power via the Blody Civil wars)
And there is no any doubt - the GErmans actually believed to Hitler. Even during the dowfall of BErlin in 1945 - every 9 from 10 Germans were still trusted to Hitler.
So from some point - there were a democraty in GErmany ( most of people actually belived and followed for him).
But this democraty was not for every...... ethnical groups.
Nazic rounded up certain peoples into the concentratio camps.
But we saw ( from Wiki for instance) the same did the Finns during occupation of Eastern Karelia in 1941-44, didn't they?
At least half of russian population have been sended into the camps ( at least 30% of them perished due to the cruel treating and famine).
ANd the Finns also very well executed the opposition ( for instance the Finns authorities even executed the pacifists- not only opponents)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

By the end of 1941, the front stabilized, and the Finns did not conduct major offensive operations for the following two and a half years. The fighting morale of the troops declined when it was realized that the war would not soon end.

It has been suggested that the execution of the prominent pacifist Arndt Pekurinen in November 1941 was due to fear of army demoralization being exacerbated by such activism.

So as you can see the democraty that could execute the its pacifist in aim to support the army moral was the usial at that time.
The bunch of "democraties" leading by Nazic armed by race-oriented policy is a very danger.
So many peoples died becouse of it.
So from certain point - there were a lot of "Democraty" among the NAzy allies ( even in Itally)

The most probaple case would have been that the Finnish army would have resisted any German invasion...like it did against Soviet invasions.
In the end it wasn't Germany who attacked...it was the Soviets.

SO why have finns not attacked d the GErmans in the june 1941 , at the moment when GErman troops come to the Finland to start the BArbarossa?
Why instead the Finns prefered the OTHER DEVIL side instaed at least try to stay the neitral?
If you were going to resist to GErmans as well as you resisted to USSR- why the finnish govenment so easy fall down at the NAzy side?You have enough strong Army and could resist to GErmans, right.
At least the Britain and USA could help you hold the NAzis.


I have no idea what you are trying to say here?

This is not strange, becouse i 've adressed this post to Fennica:)
My thought was that Even if the Brits simply bluffed threating to Stalin with the possible attack of USSR( as suggest the Fennica), it have worked enough well - becouse Stalin actually believed in it.
So the political help of Briatain was essential though.

Yup! Great game it was. Congrats for the gold.
Thank you.

[Chevan]

Chevan ignoring your soviet inherited point of view on history of Europe, Russia did what it did not to deny resources to the Germans nor to aid the allies, russian goverment simply wanted to bully a smaller nation for a valuable resource, everything else was a side advantage.
My "soviet point"?
Oh my god, every new member is going to label me as a "soviets":)
You guys better forget about USSR and its "World proletarian friendship"- there is no any more this bul..t:)
The Only Russia, new, better ...and forewer.
My point is not for to justify something, but to EXPLAIN why the events have happend in such way.
And what were the real intention of leaders of USSR and the others.
If smaller nation could join the Big Enemy and treat the slav population with cruelty- this is all right for you, yes?
P.S. you better change you location place - you obviously have nothing common with Russia.

[Warpig]

My "soviet point"?
Oh my god, every new member is going to label me as a "soviets":)
You guys better forget about USSR and its "World proletarian friendship"- there is no any more this bul..t:)
The Only Russia, new, better ...and forewer.
My point is not for to justify something, but to EXPLAIN why the events have happend in such way.
And what were the real intention of leaders of USSR and the others.
If smaller nation could join the Big Enemy and treat the slav population with cruelty- this is all right for you, yes?
P.S. you better change you location place - you obviously have nothing common with Russia.

Chevan i am a slav and God knows Russia's neighbours have no reason to love her, by your "soviet point of view" i was referring to you justifying russian foreign policy as noble, reasonable or pragmatic.

The bottom line is that Russia ( i'm deliberately avoiding the term USSR since the whole business revolved around Russia ) was as expansive as Nazi Germany, it was ( and still is but to a lesser degree ) a totalitarian state hellbent of theft, conquest and abuse and in the region of middle/ mid east Europe its not seen as a liberator but merely a lesser of two evils.

So much for the "soviet point of view".

As for Petsamo, Russia's motives were simple, a weak small state had something of value that Russia believed it could take away with little effort, there was no rationale to it apart from "we want it and we can have it so we will take it."

Conversely this lack of consideration for international affairs led to Russia being the most distrusted country in the region ( you picked up the russians being trustworthy ).

Also Russia did not care much about fellow slavs, over half a milion polish citizens murdered between 1939 and 40, more than two milion innocents sent to Gulags, murder of cossacks after the war.

Back to Petsamo, paradoxally Russia who used "imperialism" more often than the word "vodka" was imperialistic aggresively expansive ( proven by post war years ) the landgrab was the extention of this attitude of domination and abuse of weaker neighbours, all rational reasons you've put here were simply side effects not intended nor cared for by the soviets.

[Egorka]

Sorry, did not notice this thread until now...
Do not have much time right now to answer...

But here is a quick something you might find interesting - Petsamo-Pechenga maps:


1670. Map of Europe, Amsterdam. (http://radikal.ru/F/i050.radikal.ru/0805/7a/3fd67c42d404.jpg.html)
1704 г. «Generalis totius imperii Moscovitici», Johann Baptist Homann. (http://biarmia.narod.ru/img/1704.jpg) On the page click on: "http://biarmia.narod.ru/img/1704.jpg"
1706 г. «Atlas de Geographie», Guillaume de Lisle. (http://biarmia.narod.ru/img/1708.jpg) On the page click on: "http://biarmia.narod.ru/img/1708.jpg"


More maps here: http://biarmia.narod.ru/18.html

[Fennica]

Sorry, did not notice this thread until now...
Do not have much time right now to answer...

But here is a quick something you might find interesting - Petsamo-Pechenga maps:Great findings, but it seems that the two below wont work.. just the first one.

Petsamo had no real value back then, other than perhaeps an open port.(as it wont freeze up)
Ore deposits were found only later. And that is when it suddenly became important.

-But you'll see how we own the entire Karelia and St.Petersburg area!! yesyes!

[Fennica]

So in you rmind the average finn is more honest then the awerage russian one?
Is it not sort of rasism?Russians themselves say that...
Ambassador of Russia stated how Finland was just odd place. He had forgotten his gloves in a bench in the park, and as he went there the next day, gloves were right there on the bench.
(Russians actually say we are honest to the gullible.. доверчивый)

Is not you the man who wrote that during the Finnish civil war the White terror have no marcy for the Red guard and their supporters?
SO why do yo think that the Soviets , backing to the Eastern Karelia will more kind toward YOUR KArelians?...no...
Karelians were just Finns. THere was no hatred or anything like that. Those few Red Guards which managed to escape were murdered during Stalins purges.

SO in the end the the push them out was more human decision then to let the new Civil war be started....no. Karelians fled because otherwise massacre and annihilation would have taken place.
-And Soviets did try to kill the fleeing Karelians, bombed the columns and fighters strafed. What bravery..
During Winter War and Continuous War there were Finns against Soviets, not Reds against Whites.


It was a Allied decision ( not the Soviets) to split the GErmany.
And hardly they lost as much as the USSR ( 25 mln of lives).
At least the Germany has been saved as a Nation. Great NAtion that today is among EU.
I doubt the many states and nation could be saved in a case if Nazic won the war.
remember about it.
The many peoples and ethnical groups could be annihilated LITERALLY.Soviets just held on to the Eastern part until there was no alternative but to split.
Nazis and Communist were just as bad. Soviets committed ethnic clensings very eagerly.

This is not true that you got nothing.
The Finland got a great investition due to the right foreigh policy.
The Finish goods have been welcomed in the both West and Eastern markets , and west even compete with Soviets for influence at Finland via the economical yieldings.
Finlans benefited a lot of this situation.
The whole half of Soviet printing industry have been printed on the finnish paper.This is much better then so called "reconstruction " in GErmany.This is true.
But also that our entire timber industry was left behind in Karelia, and that lost territories are still in Russian hands, even though most nations have gained their possessions back.
And we had to pay you. Imagine that Russian Federation would give back lands they stole and would pay 300 million in current dollar.
-Gains from the untold injustice of the war reparations were immence, though.
Valmet machinery company and most modern heavy metal industry was created in Finland and after 1952, these companies could start producing profit.

Oh so GErmany have been annihilated?:)Third Reich was. And So was Germany until the unification.

But Yanks were in Allied sade and made a hell of job for our common Victory.
Their were no COMMUNIST , but they were our ALLY.
Like the Finland for the GErmany till the 1944.
Now you feel the difference.You just admitted that you can't ever call us Finns nazis, thank you.
And we still were no allies to Germany.

Good. SO we have a points for future agreements and good relations.The only reson to join the NATO would be Russian Federation getting all bully again. And eve so, I don't think that NATO helps. So yes, we agree on that.

Therefore i never USED a Stalinist figures.
The All figures that i used were from Wiki or from the Norway press ( the Egorka linked).Or from the Russian archives that as you might remember- enough well correspond to the finnsih ones ( as we saw it in a statistic of lost aircraft during the Winter war)Stalinistic mindset.. That Soviets were brave and righteous in their Great War and the Soviets fought with honour and bravery as every foe in front of them was annihilated.
THat Soviets mearly fought to defend their motherland and upheld justice and morale.
Archives opened only when SU fell. And I am glad that it did, and I am glad that we can compare numbers.
(just have to ask; what do you know about Raattee road?)

Hard to say what terror come first indeed.Red. Without question. Old hatreds were wented to "vallas"-people.
They killed civilinas.
It does not justify the White terror though. Both were equally wrong.

SO hardly the White terror was an "equivalent" answer.
The Whites shared the terorr very well.
Beside there were a certain differences at a teror at all.They were different and had different impact on the course of war.
Reds had prison camps where they held both captured White fighters and civilians.
Whites had prison camps which held Red fighters.

Reds were going to annihilate Helsinki, kill untold number of civilians as a revenge for White success in war.

SO if Reds killed the "class enemies" then the Whites murders had the ethnical orientation.
The WHite killed firstly the Russians.
Anyway the White terror exceed it in times.Red Russians were considered brutal warriors and they were feared.
Not least because Red Russians were military-trained, former soldiers for the Tsar.
White Guards killed any Red Guards, ethnics had minimal impact, if any at all.

But it wasn't legitime reason to capture the part of Russian terriroty in 1920-21, right?Viena expeditions failed, remember? And no, it is not a legimite reason.

Now we see where the finish-german cooperation come from.
Actually you both two natural allies.
Born to be the allies:)
Even as you mention the germans with honor.Kaisers Germany trained Jaegar to make its enemy weaker. It did not pay off, as that Germany fell.
Russians having to endure wars of independence in addition to huge war against Germany was the goal.
I still fail to see how Kaisers intrests of gaining allies in the North makes us ideal allies.

If you remember- they were mostly Finns.
The russians were no MORE the 10 000 among the 90 000 of the Red Guard.
and you killed your Kins very well.Yes, and those scars have only now beginnig to fade.
Winter War united divided kinship better than anyhting else. But Red and White mentality was strong up to the 60's.

Fortunatly in the past 40 years, such idiotic cut has all but vanished.

And why the Finland should be joined to the USSR?
To start the new civil war , again?
Don't yo think the Stalin was an idiot who don't remember the strong finnish resistense to the Reds in 1918-1919?Lenin thought that Finland would join herself after Red victory. That is why he was one of the first to recognize our independence. But Russian Reds were unable to aid Red Finns and Whites won.

Stalin most likely could care less about the people. We would have faced extermination.
He had seen Finnish civil war, yet Finland was to be taken like any other neighbouring nation.
It failed through nial-fanatical resistance, but that did not stop him from trying again, and fail again.

Right, so "friend of my enemy" Finland describes a lot in SOviet external policy during the 1939-40.How so?

Not to all of SOviets neighbourgs, this is wrong.
As i know the China have not received nothing simular:)
The only areas of former russian impare have been demanded. Like Western Ukraine , cuptured by Poland in 1920 due tho the failures of bolshevics policy and Bessarabia.How many European nations did SU swallow?
And Soviet Russians then used Ukranians as cannon fodder.

And the Finland that got the Pechenega as a "military booty" in 1920.Not military booty, because there was no military actions there. Same goes with Åland.


Why.
In this case the young nation show the good will toward neighbourd and undertstanding of thier points.It is not good will to give into threats.
Finland, as a young nation wanted to show that it will not give up lands and will not negotiate her territoy. Puts her foot down and stands firm.

Soviets suggested not bad ex-change in sense. More then twice squares lands should be passed to Finland .See, that is the thing we call `Stalins views´.
Those areas to be "given" to Soviets were of great importance. Strategic areas, locks of areas and habited places.
Soviets had NO right to claim those in the first place, and all who have given into those threats had been annexed.


Especially if Another Giant make to you the suggestion that you can't refuse, right:)
He says - join with me in war against the hostile Giant or be oocuped?
So you have no choise, right?
This is your point?"By occupied" part goes awray. Should the Germans invaded, we'd have defended. Just like against Soviets.
The offer Germans made seemed like a gift from heavens, get even against Soviets and get stolen lands back.

[Egorka]

Great findings, but it seems that the two below wont work.. just the first one.
It is some stupid link protection or something so that people would not show the images directly on other webpages...
Anyway if you click the same links as before and then roughly in the middle of the page you will see a link to the file. Click it and picture will appear.

Petsamo had no real value back then, other than perhaeps an open port.(as it wont freeze up)
Agreed.
Even the icefree harbour was not that important (at least for Russia) back then. Russia had one in Murman already. It is by the way a facinating story this icefree harbour... it was a reason for a great dispute between Norway-Sweeden, England and Russia in 19 century...

-But you'll see how we own the entire Karelia and St.Petersburg area!! yesyes!
He-he-he! :) I knew you would say that...
But I have a surprise for you. :)

First of all it is not "we", i.e. Finland, but Sweden that owned that area for 40 or so years (from my memory) before the Great Nordic war.

Secondly, here is the set of maps from the book "Finland's fight for independance 1939 - 1942". Published in Copenhagen in 1942 by "Society for Finnish Independance" which members were f.ex. ministers Ramsay, Procope and some others.

Here is the page 4 and 5:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2512825659_26dc6c6e23_m.jpg
click to enlarge to 1412x950 (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2512825659_f8b262166e_o.jpg)

The dark area represents the area that Russia would hold unreasonably compare to the 1921 borders. So the dark is "bad" from Finnish point of view. Take a look quite interesting.

Later I will translate some of it from Danish to English as the Finnish explanation of the reasons behind the border changes is quite amusing and worth to be shared among the curious public. :)

I made a photo copy of the whole book and you can browse through it here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7410929@N07/sets/72157605193658545/detail/).
There are many photografs so take a look.

[Egorka]

(just have to ask; what do you know about Raattee road?)
More than you expect... :cool:

http://community.livejournal.com/warhistory/1107656.html
http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/k/o/kommari/rate1-1.JPG

[Egorka]

And Soviet Russians then used Ukranians as cannon fodder.
How is that?

[Chevan]

Agreed.
Even the icefree harbour was not that important (at least for Russia) back then. Russia had one in Murman already. It is by the way a facinating story this icefree harbour... it was a reason for a great dispute between Norway-Sweeden, England and Russia in 19 century...

Hardly mate the Petsamo as a harbor even considered by the Stalin when he demanded it back.
But stategical Nickel is the quite other matter, especially if to keep in mind the simple fact- if not Soviet, then the GErmans would had it.
Becouse as we saw the finns were not even going to trade neither with Britain nor USA.



I made a photo copy of the whole book and you can browse through it here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7410929@N07/sets/72157605193658545/detail/).
There are many photografs so take a look.

Good matter thanks.

[Fennica]

It is some stupid link protection or something so that people would not show the images directly on other webpages...
Anyway if you click the same links as before and then roughly in the middle of the page you will see a link to the file. Click it and picture will appear.Yes, I did that. Spent a long time just skimming the maps.
They are great, amazing!
(I keep prints of old maps instead of paintings on the walls)

Agreed.
Even the icefree harbour was not that important (at least for Russia) back then. Russia had one in Murman already. It is by the way a facinating story this icefree harbour... it was a reason for a great dispute between Norway-Sweeden, England and Russia in 19 century...And despite its remote location, many goods were actually rather close to it.
-Port being ice free is worth a fight.

He-he-he! :) I knew you would say that...
But I have a surprise for you. :)

First of all it is not "we", i.e. Finland, but Sweden that owned that area for 40 or so years (from my memory) before the Great Nordic war. I know!;)

Well, Swedes never really wanted to incorporate us into them. We were always the "east-land", East-province" to them.
Place which produced fish and bread for Swedens army, produced soldiers for Sweden and was a buffer zone against Russians.

Secondly, here is the set of maps from the book "Finland's fight for independance 1939 - 1942". Published in Copenhagen in 1942 by "Society for Finnish Independance" which members were f.ex. ministers Ramsay, Procope and some others.

Here is the page 4 and 5:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2512825659_26dc6c6e23_m.jpg
click to enlarge to 1412x950 (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2512825659_f8b262166e_o.jpg)

The dark area represents the area that Russia would hold unreasonably compare to the 1921 borders. So the dark is "bad" from Finnish point of view. Take a look quite interesting.

Later I will translate some of it from Danish to English as the Finnish explanation of the reasons behind the border changes is quite amusing and worth to be shared among the curious public. :)

I made a photo copy of the whole book and you can browse through it here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7410929@N07/sets/72157605193658545/detail/).
There are many photografs so take a look.Yesh, will wait in anticipation, should prove to be intresting.
I actually see that Northern areas should belong to the Saami-folk. They live in North areas of our nations, as they had for thousands of years.