tau wrote:reptor wrote:The Estonian military's Commander-in-chief Lieutenant General Ants Laaneots has the opinion that Russia planned this war well in advance.
I think it's an interesting interpretation of a situation like this: russians get intel about georgian preparing to invade ossetia, so russians prepare in the anticipation. I dont think it's "war planning" per se.
Reptor, I'm with you about Soviet invasion of Finland, but the fact of becoming a right hand for Nazis is an ugly one, and cannot be justified in my opinion (dont take it personally, it happened long before you were born
). Besides, Nazis were screwing Jews much later during the war (maybe they were "OK" with them in the beginning), and I dont think they would let Jew people to be in troops later in 1941-1945, unless they saw Finland as a good location for military operations and wanted locals be friendly to them and not engage in partisan movements... Jew people did suffer in Baltic states later, even if they were pro-Nazi.
I was reading about Baltic states history and it seems like they have a very interesting relationship with Russia: apparently, they were just a bunch of tribes that requested to join Russian Empire to get protection from Austria and Prussia, which was granted by a russian tzar, then they got independence closer to the end of Russian Empire, then Soviet Union decided to join it back, then Baltic States wanted to be on their one again, which was granted again at the end of Soviet Union...
As for Finland, it was not a country before 1917, and as an area of Sweden, then it became a part of Russian Empire when Swedish were defeated, yet fairly autonomic region. It seems like it was granted independence by Soviet Union...
So, it's very interesting to see that chain of independence granted by early Soviet Union government (led by Lenin), then to see an attempt to get those lands back by Stalin...
I try to write a short reply, I don't want to drag this thread too much off-topic...
"Right hand for Nazis" You see, we had our own fighting going on. If you come here and talk to people, you will notice that the majority agrees with me that we were not a "right hand" for the nazis, but we had our own struggle against the Red Army and we tried to survive it. I see that your view is the view the Russians often take when they look at the wars they had against us in the WW II; that we were just nazi-sympathizers and that it was right to attack us. They conveniently forget that they attacked us before we allied with Germany. It has been shown by historians that the goal of the USSR was to conquer our country and not to only take small areas. What choice did they leave to us: either 1) join USSR or 2) fight. To me it is clear which one I choose. It is to not join the USSR. With the knowledge our country had in 1941, if it means that I will have to ally with Germany, then that is what will happen. Hopefully these words will help you understand how a lot of people here and in the Baltic states feel about this.
My point is that becoming allies with Germany in WW II
can be justified, while you argued that it can not be justified. That opinion is ignoring way too much. Can you show that in 1940 - maybe 1941 the Finnish politicians knew what Germany was doing to the Jews? I have to this date seen
zero evidence that they knew about it (and I read about WW II quite a lot). This tells me that they had no idea what the nazis were in fact doing in their concentration camps.
Also consider that we did try to get help from others before we turned to Germany. It is an interesting thought how the whole WW II would have turned out if France and UK would have helped us against the USSR like they were promising during the Winter War.
It is a fact that Jews were in the Finnish military, and it is a fact as well that there was nothing the Germans could do about that. I see your writing like you are saying that this was not possible. The information that the nazis gave the Jews (and that they knew they were Jews) Iron Crosses comes from the Jews themselves - and it happened in what we call the Continuation War, which was fought from 1941 to 1944. Those Jews were fighting against the Red Army in the Finnish military and they were not part of the German military. The military of Finland was not part of the military of Germany, I think this needs to be made sure that you understand it. The point I am making here is that you shouldn't be equalling our military with the German military, because it was far from that. If you want to dive deeper into this, for example reading about Mannerheim can give more explanation. He was the commander of our military at the time, and there is evidence that he did not like Hitler and that he did not like the Nazis.
As for Finland, it was not a country before 1917, and as an area of Sweden, then it became a part of Russian Empire when Swedish were defeated, yet fairly autonomic region. It seems like it was granted independence by Soviet Union...
So, it's very interesting to see that chain of independence granted by early Soviet Union government (led by Lenin), then to see an attempt to get those lands back by Stalin...
I see that the Soviet Union has not "granted" Finland or the Baltic states independence. You think they did. First of all, the Soviet Union did not exist at the point when Finland
declared independence. Secondly, yes, Lenin did say "OK" after some time, but he changed his mind soon, which shows that he only did what suited his own goals at the specific time. First: weaken the Russian Empire, Finland not being part of it suits his goal perfectly. Then: strenghten the power he and his friends had gotten, Finland being under their power fits that goal perfectly.
When the Baltic states regained their independence when the Soviet Union was collapsing, that was not "granting independence" either as I see it. The Baltic states saw their chance and used it. The USSR was in a political chaos at that time and they could not get themselves organized to stop what was going on (they tried). To me, that is not "granting". To me "granting" means "here, take this independence we so much want to give to you". I can believe that this claim of "granting independence" could even cause outrage among many people in the Baltic states... it is like saying that the USSR was gracious to them, which is a horrible thing to say, really.
I'm sorry, maybe some of you see this post as off-topic, but to me it is important to look at history in order to understand how the Russians behave politically. There are certain patterns and understanding them is in my opinion a key to succesfully doing politics with the Russians.
You see, when I see the Chechnyan conflict, when I see the Georgian conflict, my "national memory" starts to look at what happened to us. I try to understand what is happening now not only by reading news but also by looking at the historical patterns of how the Russians have treated their neighbour nations. This happens inevitably, and there would be little point trying to deny it. We have our memory and it affects the future. It is a fact of the human life.
It has been noticed here in Finland that in Estonia there is quite a lot of fear that the Russians might start to fight them next. See, that is their "national memory" in action. They are terrified of what they see happening in Georgia. I am not so scared that my country "will be next", I don't think that would do Russia any good. I don't see what good attacking Estonia would do to Russia, so I don't think the Estonians need to be so worried like they are now.
, but I really think he sees himself like that (not that religious though).
