What are you supposed to do as Finland?

[Fulmen]

Rukajärven tie, the movie is a story of a Finnish spearhead bicycle company or a platoon - not actually operating behind the enemy lines, but doing recon during the Finnish offensive phase in the midst of the Finnish main attack and the retreating Soviets

I see what you mean, though they were behind the Russian positions towards the end of the film.

Exactly what wasn't correct in my post? While the Swedish volunteers arrived in Salla, five Finnish infantry battalions were released from the front duty there and sent to south to more crucial and urgent fronts.

I was under the impression that by "significant amount" you were implying you thought the entire batch of Swedish volunteers actually fought in the war, rather than a small fraction. A misunderstanding then.

The Swedish volunteer force consisting of 2-3 battalions arrived to the front 27.2. where they took charge of a sector in Northern Finland where active fighting had already ended. The war itself ended 13.3.

Some interesting information related to Swedish aid, or lack thereof, that someone posted: https://agricolaverkko.fi/keskustelu/viewtopic.php?t=4261

Deserves its own thread to be translated beyond a browser's translation capabilities, though I doubt this particular topic interests many people on these forums beyond the odd Finn and Swede.

 

[kettyo]

It was deep recon & sabotage into the enemy's rear, with small formations

Isn't this very similar to what the Spetsnaz does? Maybe was it at least partly inspired by Finnish tactics?

 

[Fulmen]

Isn't this very similar to what the Spetsnaz does? Maybe was it at least partly inspired by Finnish tactics?

My knowledge on this particular area is more limited, but the Russians also did deep recon and raids of their own, [REDACTED], while Finnish deep recon was limited to the gathering of intel and occasionally sabotaging the Murmansk railway. [REDACTED]

As for deep recon in general, it's an old part of warfare. No idea whether or not the Spetsnaz took any notes from Finnish operations.

EDIT: Actually you know what, I'll edit this post and PM you with the more forum-sensitive bits regarding Russian deep recon in Finland. Don't want to risk any infractions here.

 

[Riekopo]

Here's a new game focusing on the Winter War https://store.steampowered.com/app/1180900/Winter_War/

 

[SeppoPlus]

Finlands part in WW2 is very interesting, but a nightmare to try to get right with universal game logic and mechanics. But I do appreciate how the attack on Pearl Harbor can now be done through universal game mechanics rather than through country specific events or focuses. I hope a more sophisticated diplomacy, war goal and peace conference system would provide a way to model the Winter War in a good way.

Fulmen,
Leningrad, its access to the Baltc, Kronstadt and the Baltic Fleet was all within artillery range from the Finnish border. I think this could easily be considered a threat, or at the very least a serious strategic inconvenience. This of course does not provide legal or moral justification for an invasion.

And even if the threat was not imminent, and Finland by itself was not a threat one has to put into context that the allied intervention in the Russian Civil War led the Soviet leaders to believe that the Western powers were keen to destroy the Soviet government if they had the opportunity to do so. During these interventions allied attacks were carried out also from Finnish Karelia, the very same area Stalin wanted to have from Finland. Finland at the time was not a very stable country. It almost turned fascist in the early 1930s.

State propaganda used to justify the actions of one's homeland is something Finland is also guilty of. Like all other nations to different degrees. The so called "drift wood" theory was/is used to justify Finland's close relations with Nazi Germany. That is that Finland was merely a piece of driftwood swept uncontrollably in the rapids of great-power politics, straight into the arms of Germany. Well if Finland indeed was a driftwood without means to make decisions of their own, that too would be quite risky for Stalin to have as a neighbour. The irony is that the threat Stalin perceived, came to reality because of his own actions aimed at countering that same threat.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Finlands part in WW2 is very interesting, but a nightmare to try to get right with universal game logic and mechanics. But I do appreciate how the attack on Pearl Harbor can now be done through universal game mechanics rather than through country specific events or focuses. I hope a more sophisticated diplomacy, war goal and peace conference system would provide a way to model the Winter War in a good way.

Fulmen,
Leningrad, its access to the Baltc, Kronstadt and the Baltic Fleet was all within artillery range from the Finnish border. I think this could easily be considered a threat, or at the very least a serious strategic inconvenience. This of course does not provide legal or moral justification for an invasion.

And even if the threat was not imminent, and Finland by itself was not a threat one has to put into context that the allied intervention in the Russian Civil War led the Soviet leaders to believe that the Western powers were keen to destroy the Soviet government if they had the opportunity to do so. During these interventions allied attacks were carried out also from Finnish Karelia, the very same area Stalin wanted to have from Finland. Finland at the time was not a very stable country. It almost turned fascist in the early 1930s.

State propaganda used to justify the actions of one's homeland is something Finland is also guilty of. Like all other nations to different degrees. The so called "drift wood" theory was/is used to justify Finland's close relations with Nazi Germany. That is that Finland was merely a piece of driftwood swept uncontrollably in the rapids of great-power politics, straight into the arms of Germany. Well if Finland indeed was a driftwood without means to make decisions of their own, that too would be quite risky for Stalin to have as a neighbour. The irony is that the threat Stalin perceived, came to reality because of his own actions aimed at countering that same threat.

If you think about it, diplomacy is abit like the game theory on prisoner''s dilemma. The best outcome for both parties would be for Finland and Soviet Union not to do anything. Both stayed neutral in the war and Soviet would have more forces to defend against the incoming German invasion, while the Fins have no reason to help the Germans. But of course in times of paranoia and international politics, it is hard not to do anything. Everyone wants to seek a gain in something (Remember politics = power. No one go into politics not to seek more power)

Then the next best outcome would be that Soviets give Finland its sovereignty while taking Karelia, which provides an economic-rich region while also a buffer from Leningrad. That way, Finland would still have the incentive to remain as neutral as possible in the upcoming conflict between communism and fascism. If they do stay neutral, good for the Soviets -- they do not have to dedicate forces to defend the "less important" northern Russia. But if they do intervene, the Finland may not be able to do much beyond recapturing Karelia.

The worst outcome for both parties would be that Soviet Union could conquer the entirely of the country. However, this could lead to a rather long border at the north where Germans could attack from occupied Norway and probably Sweden(if they choose to invade). There are also a lot of "worthless" areas in the northern part of Finland due to the lack of industralisation. Given the suspicion between capitalist West and communist Russia, the Allies might also be able to intervene there because the Soviets need time to reinforce the area.

Communist Russia, or Soviet Union, for that matter is not Imperial Russia (Imperial means empire). The goal of expansion is to spread the socialist ideology (like how US is trying to spread democracy), not to create a larger empire. I believe WW1 is the end of all old empires (Russia, Habsburg, Germany, Ottoman). If it just wants to conquer all other minor nations, it would have done that to Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan. Stalin's primary goal* at that time is to modernise the USSR as rapidly as possible, focusing on internal expansion rather than external (something that the Tsar failed to do). After WW2, they became a superpower and had the ability to create a large group of socialist puppets (not annexed them out-rightly).

So, no, I am not really a Russian nationalist defending Stalin's policies. I am just playing devil's advocate, dabbling in the understanding of international geopolitics, which is all about defending national interests. When you have a geopolitical view, you try to see things in a neutral way, not rosy nor cynical. If not, "good" countries like Britain would not try to infringe national sovereignty like invading Iran and Iceland or sinking the French fleet (even though they professed non-allegiance to the Vichy regime). If you play chess, it is the same mindset. All for the sake of defending national interest, like what Churchill and Stalin were trying to do. There would also not be a lot of political peculiarities like US toppling democratic regime in Iran, Mao allying with Nixon against Khrushchev or the formation of Big Three* in WW2



*Stalin's Socialism in one policy: The theory held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1923 except Russia, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. This turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held position by classical Marxism that socialism must be established globally.


* Quoting Wikipedia, Big Three is often called the "Strange Alliance" because it united the world's greatest capitalist state, the greatest socialist state and the greatest colonial power.

 

[Znail]

(...)
Not to belittle the gesture, particularly that of ordinary Swedes, but the materiel from Sweden was generally antiquaited and arrived too late to make much of an impact. It did not "make the job far easier".
(...)

I wasn't really talking about how much impact the aid had historically, even if I don't quite understand how so many rifles and guns could not have had some impact. What I ment was that if Finland got those weapons in HoI4 then it would make it quite a lot easier to fight the war.

The problem with the current situation is that it's very difficult to improve the results of the war for Finland. In history the invasion went so badly that Russia had a good reason for making a peace deal as it got a lot of soldiers out from a meat grinder. But as things are unlikely to go even nearly like history so will it often be suicide for Finland to reject the peace offer. It's also a very bad idea in the game for Sweden to choose to actively aid Finland as that will turn off the peace deal trigger and the resulting long war will be hard to win for Sweden and Finland.

 

[Jopa79]

It almost turned fascist in the early 1930s.

It's too far to say that Finland almost turned a fascist state during the early 1930's. However, agitation and unrest were fairly common during the late 1920's and the early 1930's.

The Lapua Movement was a Finnish radical nationalist and anti-communist political movement of the era. Its objectives were to uproot and deny all communist and socialist parties and their activities in Finland, further to establish and setup a right-wing dictatorship in Finland. The Lapua Movement succeeded legally in banning the Left Party agencies as well as in denying the communist and socialist newspapers in Finland, supported by the Lapua Movement P.E.Svinhufvud was elected for the Finnish President and Lapua Movement dictated the Finnish Government, but abstained itself.

After reaching one of the goals - denying the communist and socialist parties in Finland, the popularity of the Lapua Movement struggled and faded off as many supporters felt the objectives as reached. The movement radicalized and in order to reach its purposes and ideas the Lapua Movement began to use nuisance, violence, political terror, kidnapping and beating people. The radicalization was the most significant reason why the Lapua Movement declined in power and the members abandoned the idea. To remain the social order also Svinhufvud turned his back for the old sponsors and supporters.

The last act to demonstrate its strength was the Mäntsälä Rebellion in 1932 - a failed coup attempt by the Lapua Movement to overthrow the Finnish government. As the situation worsened and the tension grew, the Finnish Army was ready and prepared to use force to end the rebellion. After a five-days-wait Svinhufvud gave a radio speech and urged the men to return to their homes and families promising only the leaders would be punished. The men dispersed and the leaders were arrested.

The Lapua Movement was disbanded a few months later - it was suppressed by the exact same methods and mechanisms which it had used to gain power.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

It's too far to say that Finland almost turned a fascist state during the early 1930's. However, agitation and unrest were fairly common during the late 1920's and the early 1930's.

The Lapua Movement was a Finnish radical nationalist and anti-communist political movement of the era. Its objectives were to uproot and deny all communist and socialist parties and their activities in Finland, further to establish and setup a right-wing dictatorship in Finland. The Lapua Movement succeeded legally in banning the Left Party agencies as well as in denying the communist and socialist newspapers in Finland, supported by the Lapua Movement P.E.Svinhufvud was elected for the Finnish President and Lapua Movement dictated the Finnish Government, but abstained itself.

Interesting. Never know about that. I believe though that a lot of war justification comes from the pretext of past threats, no matter minor they may be. This is what paranoia is all about. To snuff out any signs of dissent so as to keep the place controlled and orderly as possible. So, to say Stalin wanted to conquer Finland because he actually feared an anti-communist movement is a bit too far-fetched. The Lapua Movement is more like a excuse by the Soviets for the war, if needed be.

The Lapua Movement was disbanded a few months later - it was suppressed by the exact same methods and mechanisms which it had used to gain power.

On a side note, people should remember that a state is ultimately a custodian of power and responsibility. So, no matter the ideology (communist or democratic), leaders always employ Machiavellian tactics to stay in power and keep things under control. That say, democracy is an utopia -- a dream we may never achieve but slowly reaching.

 

[Palaiologos]

I doubt imperial Germany was in any way better strategically. Yes they have colonies but they were pathetic compared to the Allies. Not to mention Japan later joined the world. The German navy was strong but not built to police the empire unlike Royal Navy. In fact they were bottled up in Baltic. The defeat of Central powers was a matter of time unless they could subjugate Russia (same for Nazi Germany).

In fact, I would argue that Nazi Germany did better considering the fact that they held off the world for 6 years, as compared to 4 years for Imperial Germany.

Well they held them for 6 years instead of 4 because they fought them to the streets of Berlin. Imperial Germany asked for a cease fire while still in France. And Imperial Germany had actually won on the Russian Front. They had a navy and manpower reserves when the war started unlike WW2 Germany that had literalily zero reserves(45% of the army up to 1941 was over 40 years old, thanks to Versaiiles). Now I too believe that considering the odds the 3rd Reich had by far surpassed the 2nd one in the conduct of the war.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Well they held them for 6 years instead of 4 because they fought them to the streets of Berlin. Imperial Germany asked for a cease fire while still in France. And Imperial Germany had actually won on the Russian Front. They had a navy and manpower reserves when the war started unlike WW2 Germany that had literalily zero reserves(45% of the army up to 1941 was over 40 years old, thanks to Versaiiles). Now I too believe that considering the odds the 3rd Reich had by far surpassed the 2nd one in the conduct of the war.

Germany had not actually won on the Russian Front, unlike in WW2. It was a ceasefire, not a total defeat for Russia. Considering the Russia is in turmoil, once it stablised under Lenin, the Eastern front might reopen again. They (Germans) still have to hold a considerable amount of troops there. So nope, Germany's strategic position is still hopeless near the end of WW1. Not to mention the arrival of tanks and American troops from the west.

 

[George Parr]

Germany had not actually won on the Russian Front, unlike in WW2. It was a ceasefire, not a total defeat for Russia. Considering the Russia is in turmoil, once it stablised under Lenin, the Eastern front might reopen again. They (Germans) still have to hold a considerable amount of troops there. So nope, Germany's strategic position is still hopeless near the end of WW1. Not to mention the arrival of tanks and American troops from the west.

That's like saying the Entente didn't beat Germany in the West, and that it was "just a ceasefire". It simply makes no sense. Most wars don't end in total annihilation of one side, but instead of said side realizing that they are doomed, causing them to give up.

Russian efforts to fight had collapsed. They faced the choice between giving in in the same way Germany had to at the end of the war, or risk losing everything. Even if the Soviets had managed to consolidate rather quickly, which is entirely absurd while not at peace with Germany, it would have taken them years to field a somewhat proper army that could face an actual enemy. Just look at how many troubles they had against a much smaller Polish army, or how quickly German units could advance without any real fighting.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

That's like saying the Entente didn't beat Germany in the West, and that it was "just a ceasefire". It simply makes no sense. Most wars don't end in total annihilation of one side, but instead of said side realizing that they are doomed, causing them to give up.

Russian efforts to fight had collapsed. They faced the choice between giving in in the same way Germany had to at the end of the war, or risk losing everything. Even if the Soviets had managed to consolidate rather quickly, which is entirely absurd while not at peace with Germany, it would have taken them years to field a somewhat proper army that could face an actual enemy. Just look at how many troubles they had against a much smaller Polish army, or how quickly German units could advance without any real fighting.

This is helpful. On a lighthearted note, I find it interesting that Russia lost WW1 and became a backseat power to the Britain, while it won WW2 and became a more important ally than the France.

 

[Palaiologos]

This is helpful. On a lighthearted note, I find it interesting that Russia lost WW1 and became a backseat power to the Britain, while it won WW2 and became a more important ally than the France.

Germany had won the Russian Front in WW1. They had signed a peace deal, the war was over. Ukraine and the Baltics to Austria Hungary and Germany (Well German-influenced not annexed).The Baltics were garissoned by German troops while Ukraine by Austrian. It allowed them to shift troops to the west for one final attempt at breaking the allied defences.

 

[Fulmen]

Here's a new game focusing on the Winter War https://store.steampowered.com/app/1180900/Winter_War/

I bought that recently. Haven't played much but I recall it had some elements missing from HoI4 represented in some way, like fire support from coastal batteries and the advantage of having snow camouflage. Things that I hope PDX will one day represent in HoI4.

But I do appreciate how the attack on Pearl Harbor can now be done through universal game mechanics

The "Coordinated Strike" mechanic is many times stronger than the attack on PH (see this thread), though I get what you're saying.

During these interventions allied attacks were carried out also from Finnish Karelia, the very same area Stalin wanted to have from Finland. Finland at the time was not a very stable country.

The Royal Navy was brought in to protect the shores of Finland and Estonia from Soviet Russia. To better carry out this mission, the English requested a base of operations at Koivisto, Finland, much closer to the enemy's navy than the RN's previous bases of operation in Estonia and Latvia had been. This request was accepted. However at least the initial attacks against the Bolshevik navy was carried out by the English of their own accord and without knowledge and permission from the Finns.

In 1919 Finland had just come out from a bloody war of independence turned civil war, was still in a state of war with Soviet Russia, and the frontiers across her borders were in a constant state of flux, but the Finno-Russian peace treaty signed in Tartu in October 1920 stabilised things. The treaty effectively settled the question of Finland's eastern frontiers, for better or worse, and barring some some radical political activity circa 1929-32, the country was stable. She certainly was capable of defending herself from any incursion by a Western power, such as Germany, a fact which I am quite certain the Russians, with their extensive global spy network, were aware of.

It almost turned fascist in the early 1930s.

No, she didn't "almost turn fascist". But I see @Jopa79 already covered this.

 

[Kenttäharmaa]

Finland support of Nazi germany

brainwashed by Kremlin propaganda

Quality Russian propaganda television series about the Winter War 1939-40, aired by Russian countrywide TV channel REN TV.

Finns starting the war in collaboration with the Nazis, Waffen-SS men in Finland, Finnish snipers hiding in trees, glorious Soviet soldiers all equipped with winter camouflage... Who would have thought, everything I read in the Pravda was actually true! )))

Full series on YouTube here. Over 4.2 million views and counting, not a single negative remark in the comments.

 

[Spelaren]

Nothing good comes with interacting with Russia. Russian imperialism is always the same no matter century.

 

[Riekopo]

Even tho propaganda, still could be entertaining. English subtitles?

 

[Fulmen]

Even tho propaganda, still could be entertaining. English subtitles?

I took a look at those links. Didn't see any subtitles, and I'm not sure why anyone would bother watching that anyway. I don't speak Russian beyond a few words, but to me as a Finnish military historian, it seemed very cringeworthy. It's essentially 100% Soviet propaganda with a bunch of other random fictional elements: Finland starts the war by shelling Mainila, Finnish snipers sit in trees, there are a lot of German Waffen-SS men strutting around doing "Nazi stuff", the Russian soldiers all have snow camouflage and are portrayed as the model Soviet soldier who bravely and easily takes out his foe, etc. Some of the more random aspects include there being a lot of Russian female soldiers and the "Finns" of the series speaking very bad Finnish, which was a little amusing but not surprising (doubt they hired any Finnish actors for this).

In reality of course, the Shelling of Mainila was a staged Russian false flag operation to give credibility for attacking Finland, which however the rest of the world saw right through.

Finnish snipers never sat in trees, but the Russians thought they did, hence why the Russians called them kukushka (cuckoo).

There were no German forces in Finland during the Winter War, nor was Finland aligned with Germany until after and because of the Winter War. In 1939-41 Russia claimed Finland had attacked the USSR on England's behalf. After Russia's ally, Germany, attacked the former, this rhetoric changed to "on Germany's behalf", which remains a popular "theory" in Russia today and is at least partly supported by the regime under Putin, despite Yeltsin admitting in 1994 that the war was one of pure aggression by the USSR, plain and simple.

The Russians had barely any snow camouflage during the Winter War, and brave or not, they didn't have an easy time either: they got mowed down by the hundreds of thousands, by ill-equipped, massively outnumbered and outgunned defenders.

And lastly, the female soldier is another favourite mannequin of the Soviet propaganda machine, but in reality there were very, very few of them, and I don't think any in the Winter War. Although here I suspect the show including so many might also be to increase viewers, e.g. by giving female audiences characters they can better identify with.

Over 4.2 million views and counting, not a single negative remark in the comments.

Also noticed that. I must've browsed through hundreds of comments translated by Chrome from Russian into English. Didn't see a single one calling the show out for its blatant lies, only praise. Was kind of sad to see.

Anyway at this point I reckon we should return to HoI4, or just let the thread die if there's nothing more to add on the original topic for now.