I guess to share his interest on the subject

Have to fck the dot a tiny bit "Suomessa saattaa olla ikiroutaa Lapin palsasoilla.". Might be so you can't exclude it but else we have what you said.

@@amadeuz819 😀 Sure. There IS permafrost in certain swamps in the northernmost Lapland. 🙂Those swamps are known by those frozen formations or palsa. That information is totally irrelevant to this lecture as there was no permafrost in the regions where Soviet army invaded in 1939. 🙂 In the 1940s there were more of palsasuo than now. Now they are disappearing. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoHNeIxnaKeqiZIsi=tzMEPdZAFoTBM9PU

@@amadeuz819 fuck the dot :'D

They are hiding the fact that they made a deal with the Devil in WW2 to save themselves against Germany. Like even when allied with the Soviet they accepted Soviet taking even more but they never talk about that and only sometimes mention that some generals said "Did we defeat the right enemy". Its like they can't do for them the right thing if it included wrong things done so they "shove it under the carpet" instead of just stating out the price they paid. The price was paid even later in all the proxy wars and the countries that was given to Soviet did not have a lovely time like the liberated French or the saved Jews. They sort of exchanged lives for lives but never talk or want to show the reality thus probably using today's country maps when wanting to show the Soviet "influence"(this too should be named enslavement or at least a more negative word than influence because force was used and people seized to exist). It's not only the other side that uses propaganda to paint a romanticized picture. Like how many times did you have to salute the flag in school "to become patriotic"...

Finns have always spoken Fin(not the same Fin until a FinSwe wrote it down but similar to each other), like it was never forbidden just not spoken in government. So we have had Finns changing to FinSwe and FinSwe changing to Fin during the years depending on the governing language(not heard of a time when Finns would have freely changed to Rus but we do have those speaking Fin today with Rus speaking past, then if they were enslaved Uralic people before or real Slavs I do not know. I have heard of Finns fighting on the red side then moving to Russia to get the gift of lead to their head). Like if we would have agreed to speak Russian like all the now extinct groups in current Russia, we would probably also be extinct like them. So in good or bad, Sweden becoming a Kingdom and getting the right to our land from the church saved us from the fate of our siblings on the Russian side.

@@amadeuz819 Swedes actively discouraged finnish language as they deemed finnish lesser being. Russia gave a encouragement to speak finnish and the idea to have it finally as governing language (fennomania) because they wanted to discourage swedish influence. Autonomy was a russian idea which lead to independent thought. Swedes would have done the same thing as the did to the forest finns so as history is proof, thank god Russia invaded in 1809 :)

@@kallekallenen4346 There have been times in Finland when they have tried to push Fin, there have been times they have tried to push Swe. Russia tried to erase our people like they have tried in every place they have occupied. There is a reason why children here is told "If you do not behave you end up in Siberia" instead of "If you do not behave you end up in Hell". Don't feed that Bull milk to me, we drink Cow milk here so you can enjoy your Bull milk in Russia. Governmental language was Swe and we were the same country with Sweden. Saami still exist within Sweden and Norway, even if the Finns turned Swedes. In the Baltic's all languages still exist. Lets take a peak on Russia, none exists in the western parts. Novgorod was still a co existing country. How about Tver next to the Baltic's or Ingria or even Karelia that still border similar people? Perm is probably soon gone and all the ones that were protected in Siberia because the distance was too long for the Muscovians to erase them. Really the only thing Finland got from being part of Russia was a border with Sweden to split the old country but if we hadn't got out in 1917 then we would not exist today. So your logic is really twisted. "Nothing good comes from the east except the sunrise". Our history speaks of darkness when it speaks about Muscovia. What happened to the Finnic people that helped Muscovia push out the horde? I assume according to your logic they have schools in Russia speaking their finnic language? Go feed your Bull Milk to someone else.

Vikings failed to conquer Finland. The Norse Viking leader Olav Haraldsson raided the coasts of Finland but his army was ambushed by the Finns in the woods, and he was almost killed in the battle around 1008. He was later King of Norway (1015-1028). Besides Finnish witches casted storms when the Vikings tried to navigate their ships. But the Finns had useful trade relations with Vikings like selling high quality furs.

There were the Swedish Volunteer Corps in the Winter War that fought especially in Finnish Lapland. For instance the Swedish Voluntary Air Force operated from Kemi in northern Finland for the last 62 days of the Winter War. The aircraft also came from the Swedish Air Force inventory.

@@dirreeN very interesting about the button! Thanks for writing that

Yeah, when Finland was fighting for its existence during the Winter War, Sweden honored this "everlasting brotherhood" by preventing British&French military aid coming to Finland. That military aid included 50,000 soldiers, 200 aircraft, countless artillery units, etc. not to mention ammunitions. But hey, maybe Finland didn't have a need for them so, no hard feelings, right? The Finns have nothing against Sweden but Sweden's promises of military aid have always been a joke here. Sorry, that's just a fact.

@@x-wing8785 Britain and France didn't declare war to the Soviet Union when the Red Army attacked to eastern Poland on 17 September 1939 even if they had declaced war to Germany for the same reason a couple weeks earlier. For Poland Hitler and Stalin were equally bad options. Britain and France wanted to have an access to the Swedish iron mines because they were important for weapons production. There was actually a Franco-British plan to invade Norway and Sweden to prevent Swedish iron ore to go to Germany. But Stalin also wanted to avoid the military conflict with Britain and France, and it made him more agreeable to make an armistice with Finland in March 1940. The Swedish economic aid to Finland was twice as big as the Finnish own military budget including all kinds of rifles, machine guns, ammunition, anti-aircraft guns, sea mines, depth charges, trucks, etc. Sweden helped Finland more than it did when the Wehrmacht attacked to Denmark and Norway in April 1940.

@@lucone2937 Perhaps it is better to look at what Finnish leaders said in 1940 about Sweden's role in the winter war: Mannerheim: "Finland's defeat in the winter war was entirely Sweden's fault." J. K. Paasikivi was bit more direct in his words: "Sweden is a shit country and every Swede is a shithead." Their words were not particularly polite but give a good picture of what the situation was at that time. No one denies Swedish military aid to Finland, but Sweden's entire role during the war was more against Finland than for it. Before the war, Finland and Sweden had already agreed on defense cooperation(and Finland trusted it). When the Soviet Union's attack on Finland began to look likely, Sweden suddenly announced that it would not come to aid if the Soviet Union declares war. At the same time, Sweden gave up Åland, whose status was still unclear at the time, so defence of Åland also fell entirely for Finland. At least it cemented Åland to become part of Finland after war, so there was sometinhin good about it. Anyway, all this caused more harm for Finland that later military aid could compencate.

You say that finland refused the marshall plan due to soviet influence. That's 100 % the same as saying it was not allowed.

@@thelistener0 Yeah, Finland couldn¨t' accept the Marshall Plan because the Soviet Union was against it. Instead Finland had to pay war reparations to the Soviet Union that were originally worth US$300,000,000 at 1938 prices (equivalent to US$6.49 billion in 2023). The last dispatched train of the deliveries paying the war reparations crossed the border between Finland and the Soviet Union on 18 September 1952.

Though Finland got various type of other assistance from the US but it was outside the Marshall plan... like loans, Fulbright scholarships, cargo ships etc.

@@roxpace swedish reign totally started as a colonization but later turned into annexing the area into the kingdom properly.

@@itseperkele181 I would not define that as colonization, even Swedish Vikings had settlements there in southwest I think, so the presence was there before the so called "colonization"

@@roxpace well it was a outside power coming in and changing the local ways to theirs. Sounds like colonization to me. Just to be clear, I'm not saying they colonized like, for example, the british did. Maybe colonization-light would be a better description lol

@@itseperkele181 Finland grew as a part of Kingdom of Sweden. "Colonization" was done before real states even existed. And folks in Finland did not have infrastructure to be a nation. I suppose you could say that Sweden annexed Finland by starting to build limited infrastructure to Finland. But colony to Sweden? Definitely no. By the time Sweden turned a European superpower Finland just a part of the kingdom.

I live in Finland. Finns stress that Finland was treated as a fairly equal part of the Swedish kingdom in the 1700s, but that was only partly true, and things were very different in the 5 preceding centuries. The area now called Finland was definitely colonized during and after the Swedish crusades against Finns, Tavastians, and Karelians during the period from 1150 to 1293. The Finnish upper class lost its position and lands to new Swedish and German nobility and to the Catholic Church.[1] The Swedish colonisation of some coastal areas of Finland with Christian population was a way to retain power in former pagan areas that had been conquered. It has been estimated that there were thousands of colonists.[2] Colonisation led to several conflicts between the colonists and local population which have been recorded in the 14th century. In colonised areas the Finnish population principally lost its fishing and cultivation rights to the colonists.[3][4] Though the Finnish provinces were an integral part of the Kingdom of Sweden with the same legal rights and duties as the rest of the realm, Finnish-speaking Swedish subjects faced comparative challenges in dealing with the authorities as Swedish was established as the sole official language of government. In fact, it remained a widely accepted view in Sweden proper that the Finns were in principle a separate and conquered people and therefore not necessarily entitled to be treated equitably with Swedes. Swedish kings visited Finland rarely and in Swedish contemporary texts Finns were often portrayed as primitive and their language inferior.[5] Approximately half of the taxes collected in Finland was used in the country, while the other half was transferred to Stockholm.[6] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland_under_Swedish_rule

And im pretty sure it was only a thing bit later on in ww2 when they were desperate for manpower.

Never heard any soviet female soldier in winterwar.

yeah.i'd say you need to go back in time for a few hundred years more.

Because Germany is a landpower and landpower can not be defeated in the Atlantic Ocean or the Arctic Ocean nor in any other ocean. Neither can a land power be defeated in the air. A land power can only be defeated in a huge scale land war. That is what matters and that is either the Brits and the Americans were afraid of.

@@kodor1146 The Germans and Italians were in a land war in the west from 1940, as well as a sea and air war. It's not as if there was no land war against Germany in the west until 1944. 2/3 of Germanys wartime expenditure and material resources went on their air and sea forces, and these were largely destroyed in the west. Most German land units were non mechanised, second rate, poorly equipped horse drawn rabble, due to the resources Germany needed to put into their air and sea forces. This was of enormous benefit to the USSR. Already by the end of 1942, some 60% of German fighters were in Germany defending against the allied strategic bombing campaign. The allied strategic bombing campaign in Germany also took up 1/3 of all German artillery, 1/2 of German electro-technical and 1/3 of all German optical equipment. There was most definitely a second front all through WW2, and as I already said the west was the ONLY front for the first two years. The British and Americans were afraid? The British were fighting all the way through the war. Unlike the Soviets who didn't lift a finger to help until Germany invaded them in June 1941.

@@lyndoncmp5751 That is why I said "huge scale lnd war". Again a land power can only defeat on land. How much money is put in airplanes and ships doesn´t matter. For defeating a land power you need somebody who is doing the actual fighting on land which is ugly because land war is always ugly due to the losses. The Western Powers got 2 problems: 1st) The German army from 1870 to 1945 was by far the best fighting force in the world. They were tactically superior to all of the opponents they faced. Making things worse they were highly modern equipped and fought fanatically. They were a highly dangerous foe and none of the Germans opponents could measure up to them on the battlefield. Just think about North Africa where the Brits received a sound threasing by the Germans although for them it was just a sideshow. 2nd) The Western powers were democracies and there is nothing else in the world democracies are more afraid of than death. They panically fear. There is nothing democracies fear more than to die which is why they need somebody doing the real war, the big scale ground war, for them. And these were the Soviets. There is a reason why the Western Allies had no conficence in themselves when it came to ground warfare and why they only had one aim: bring the boys home. The motto of democracy always is, let others die, let others sacrifice their youth. Just look at the pacific. The Americans did their island hopping, fought from island to island right through the pacific but finally they stood at the gate of the Japanse mainland. Entering the Japanese isles the Americans expected losses between 70,000 and 200,000. So the Americans faced the landings in Japan with very mingled feelings. With even more mingled feelings they faced the fact to fight against Jaoan not just on the Japanese mainland but also in China where 2 million Japanese were deployed along the coast, more than 3,700 miles. Now we do not land on an atoll but on the mainland with a 2 million men strong army in fortified positions. And as with the Germans they had no guts for this kind of an operation and so they approached the ones which died non stop since 1941: the Soviets. And they did it. Within 14 days. The Americans hair stood on end. The reason for the dropping of the nuclear bombs was mainly to keep the Soviets at bay, to convience them that the bombs really work. Again Germany is a land power and you can only defeat a land power on land and therefore you need somebody doing the dirty work, the big scale land war. Losses in the dimension of big scale land war can only be borne by dictaturships never by democracies. Americans and Brits as democracies were scared sh...tless to do a big scale land war. They wouldn´t have been able to launch this kind of war. Both, as classical democracies panically were afraid to die.

​​@@kodor1146 The USSR did NOTHING against Nazi Germany until it was FORCED to fight after Nazi Germany invaded in June 1941. Where was the bravery of the Soviets to fight before this? The USSR had NO OPTION but to fight for ITSELF. It was not bravery, it was not sacrificing for the sake of others. It was self serving self preservation. No more. The USSR did precisely NOTHING to help when the Luftwaffe was dropping bombs and killing tens of thousands of civilians in my city in 1940 during the Blitz. Instead the USSR was sharing vodka with the Nazis.

​@@lyndoncmp5751 Doesn´t change the fact that a land power can only be defeated on land and that this role (wrestling down the German war machine) had been played by the Soviets. The British mind was highly informed by WW1. In the British mind when WW2 starts out there is one thing you don´t want to do, one thing you want to avoid at any cost and that is having a million, havint two million soldiers fighting the German Army. There is never been anything like it. The German Army back than was the most capable, most effective, most competent and most murderous force in the world. None Western Power was able to launch a land war against them. Take the Americans, their economy is way bigger than the German one and heir human potential that can be mobilized is way bigger than the German one. But nevertheless in a war fought one on one (GER vs USA) they would not have been able to defeat the Germans because of their terrible fear of dying. Their losses would have been gone into the millions and this is too much for a democracy. As a girl is afraid of a mouse democracies (US / GB) are afraid of death. The SU on the other hand could die. It could die superbly even. Already in the first months of war against the German war machine they suffered losses of two million men killed in action, 3 million captured by the Germans but nevertheless they continued fighting. Even a fraction of this losses would have been enough for the Brits or the Americans to quit the war and go home. Land war against the Germans was way beyond what the Brits and the Americans were able to do. Land war is different. It is dirty, it is loss making. Nothing glossy about it. It´s killing. Brutal! Victory by destruction. In this field neither the British nor the americans had any business.