Finland's Continuation War in a Nutshell

[@JokiMBS]

Finland in 1943 *Scratches record, freezes frame* "So you're probably wondering how I got in this situation"

[@Viwilde]

Or! You know that kind of country that allies with nazi Germany and then wonder why it sucks? 😂

[@potatofuryy]

@@Viwilde are you disrespecting my homeland?

[@mabussubam512]

What is homeland?

[@kaljatonttu4666]

I know the answer: European socialists!

[@ruihopracing8151]

@@Viwilde ARE YOU DISRESPECTING MY H O M E L A N D

[@ericmyrs]

I've been at the "infrastructure" between Norway and Finland. Even today it's a small ass road. Back then it was probably barely more than a tractor track. And there is miles and miles of nothing between Kirkenes and Inari, which isn't even half way to the bay of Bothnia. Getting anywhere useful in Finland would be basically impossible at any sort of speed.

[@morisco56]

That part must be beautiful tho

[@Raumance]

@@morisco56 Yeah practically the whole of Lapland on all sides is just mostly national parks. I know the Norway side is hiking country don't know much about that, but in Finland there are loads of wilderness cabins for hikers and loads of established hiking routes.

[@ericmyrs]

@Lovecraft That does not surprise me. Even today the Kirkenes-Haparanda trip is an 8.5 hour trip by car. And you'd constantly be at risk for ambushes as there is only one road.

[@SaulKopfenjager]

Apparently from what I've read Dietl's Mountain Korps approach march & snail pace advance to a stop was on a shoe string supply line that was WORSE than Rommel's Afrika Korps!

[@ericmyrs]

@@morisco56 That depends on what you want out of this. in Finland, what land is not dense pine forest, is mosquito ridden lakes. And on the Norwegian side, with an exception in the Pasvik valley, it's barren and cold as shit, sub arctic climate. I was once in Kirkenes at midsummer, and when we went over the mountain to Grense Jakobselv, there was fresh ice on the lakes and two meter high snow banks left over from the winter. If you enjoy wilderness skiing, a place like this is paradise in May.

[@jennijenkins5235]

It’s hard to give Finland crap for working with Germany when the allies worked with the Soviets and even completely betrayed Poland to the Soviets as well.

[@TherealJimDunsworth]

You know your history... the truth can really put perspective on things

[@ddoumeche]

the allies didn't betray Poland to the soviets, they shared the world into sphere of influence to avoid a new world war, and it worked until now

[@somethingtoputonpizza6667]

working with the Soviets is not as bad but Betraying the Polish was just wrong

[@SimoNemo7]

@@somethingtoputonpizza6667 the Soviets letting the poles die in 1944 during the Warsaw upsizing while not assisting them will forever be the nail in the coffin of Russia/Poland relationship. Not to mention the Soviets invading Poland years earlier with Germany.

[@KappaClauss]

​@@SimoNemo7Polish-Russian relationship have been bad since the 16th century

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Unlike all other axis countries Finland remained parliamentary democracy and never persecuted own Jews.

[@matthewct8167]

That’s really interesting

[@_friedie]

Yes, but not only that. Finish Jews fought on the front as members of the Finish army side by side with German troops. There were also field-synagoges near the front. Some of them even earned Iron Crosses by helping German soldiers, but they refused them! Finland refused to surrender their Jews to the Germans, cause they were fully accepted Finish citizens....

[@danielheikari5063]

friedietm Finland actually sent 8 Jews to Germany before and during the war...

[@_friedie]

Yes, 8 Jews from Austria (which was a part of Germany back then) were turned over by the head of the police. But It was a scandal back then.

[@bennybro2229]

Mussolini did not persecute the Jews either. One forth of Jews were in the Italian Fascist Party. There were Party leaders who were Jews. About half of the fascist countries were tolerant of Jews. Persecution of Jews was a German Nazi issue.

[@vanukas8783]

I like how Britain declared war when Finland wanted their land back, the land Britain promised to help defend when they never did. I think it went like that atleast. Not sure.

[@heikkisallinen9012]

Every country has their own interests to guard before those of others.

[@AsserKortteenniemi]

They declared war only after Finnish troops crossing the old border, and due to heavy soviet pressure to do so. Churchill even wrote a letter to Mannerheim to apologize the declaration of war.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

It was only political, to freeze Finnish assets abroad, due to pressure from Russian ministers for more shows of solidarity. I don't believe there were any British military attacks on Finland and anyway it only occurred after the Finnish military crossed onto Soviet soil despite warning from UK ambassador. I agree with earlier comments (not TIK) that Mannerheim took Karelia as a buffer to return in exchange for return to '39 borders.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

Britain also declared war on Germany who had similarly wanted their land back.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

@ Think you mean the Soviets...

[@WandererRTF]

Great video! Few comments... (from a Finn...) following the video The Soviet demands did not stop at the end of the Winter War. They repeatedly interfered with the Finnish internal politics, sponsored a communist group openly aiming to overthrow the government, shot down Finnish civilian aircraft, readjusted the borders, tried to blackmail concessions by withholding food shipments... That part also played a huge role as to why Finland chose to align with the Axis. It was seen as a choice between that (i.e. being under Hitler's umbrella) or being again invaded by the Soviets. Finland actually received plenty of the help that had been sent towards Finland during the Winter War only after the war when the Germans finally released the ships they had interned. So the material situation was not as bad as what it might appear. Germans however gave very little to the Finns. They were willing to sell plenty for a profit. Most of what the Germans sold to the Finns were actually material the Germans had captured from Poland, France, Norway and Yugoslavia. Often not first rate stuff but still perfectly serviceable. So for example instead of Me-109 they sold Finns French Curtis Hawk P-36 and M.S. 406 fighters. Though it is likely that food was the most important thing - Germans also sold Finns oil/fuel and similar material. And it was done in exchange for both raw materials (like nickel) but also for paper and wood industry products (per cargo manifests). Of the routes mentioned the first one was by far the most important. It granted the Germans direct access to the Finnish transport network and allowed relatively straightforward troop transit to the northern Norway. And the southernmost ports in Finland were not shut because of ice for 5 months (the ones the Germans kind of would have wanted up in the Gulf of Bothnia however were), which further underlines the importance of Hanko (which is the southernmost port and first to get free of ice). Most of the supply route issues however mattered more to the German forces in the northern Norway than to providing supplies to the Finns. The main Finnish offensive did not start until July 10. The actual goal is rather hard to determine especially when you keep in mind that Mannerheim was not the one deciding that. He was not a political leader (at the time) but just a military commander. Mannerheim's idea seems to have been to get the shortest lines possible to make sure he can easily defensible lines (and make the demobilization possible). As to why they stopped, it is hard to say. But it is good to keep in mind that Finnish troops were not willing to advance much further. Several hundreds of men had already refused to advance and the crossing of Svir at the Onega end failed two times as the men practically just refused to cross the river. And yes. While the Finns had been impressed of the German advance in the south the German units in Finland that the Finns personally witnessed in action left much to be desired. German 163rd Infantry Division (which was in the Finnish are of operations in the southern part intended for the 'handshake at Svir') practically needed a shepherding Finnish units. Further north the German unpreparedness for the forest/winter fighting shocked the Finns (of the Finnish 3rd and 6th divisions which were operating in the German area of operations). There are plenty of mentions Finns using German equipment in ways the Germans had not figured out (like pontoon boat convoys on the northern lakes and so on). The Finnish battalion in the north was guarding the flank of the advance and not really involved in the offensive. In this role (as anti-raiding) the Finnish troops were far more effective than the Germans, sufficient enough that when the troops were reshuffled in 1942 to revert all German forces under the German command and all Finnish forces under Finnish command the German military command in northern Finland did not want to give up these Finnish anti-raiding units. At least in some of the Finnish literature the way the demobilization was done has been highly criticized (not that any better routes existed). In practice what happened was that the organization change removed the reserve regiment of the divisions. Meaning it would be much harder for the reorganized Finnish divisions to react than what it had been. As to leaving the war... Additional woe for trying to leave the war was the food issue. Finns still needed to import food just in order to stave off starvation (as Finland could not produce enough food even during peacetime). And not surprisingly they did not trust the Soviets. I can not say for certain but if i had to guess i would say that it would have required Western allies to be involved. It was perceived that Finland had to have a reliable source of food. In 1944 the Swedes actually guaranteed this which helped things along on its own part. In Finland the period after the end of the offensive phase (in some sectors starting already on September 1941, but in others in late December 1941) until the start of the Soviet offensive of 1944 is described as the 'trench war'. Both sides dug elaborate trench and field fortification setups along the front lines. Some action occurred in 1942 (for example Suursaari/Gogland, Soviet winter offensive, Soviet rasputitsa offensive, Soviet partisan brigade). Just to clarify, the VKT-line was not where it started. That line was actually very close to where the front lines ended up being when the fighting ended in the Winter War. Roughly estimated it was on average about halfway between the pre-Winter War and post-Winter War borders. Ryti-Ribbentropp Pact was essentially a personal guarantee from the Finnish president to the German Reich that he would not allow Finland to make separate peace. This was a ruse (and very likely the Germans saw through it but had no real options than to provide the requested support) as it only bound Ryti personally. Who after the Soviet offensive had been blunted promptly resigned to free Finland from his personal pledge. Even then the Soviet offensive accomplished little more than making the terms slightly more lenient for the Finns (when comparing the terms the Soviets offered in the spring of 1944 to those offered in the autumn of 1944). Lapland war actually started very amicably. The Finns even helped the Germans to evacuate. And both sides cooperated in order to evacuate fair share of the civilians from the Lapland to the extent it was possible (either to Sweden or to southern Finland). Then after the failed German landing operation on Gogland which was repulsed by the Finns things turned more serious. However on land so called 'autumn maneuvers' were practiced. In essence the Finns and the Germans had an agreement on the schedule of withdrawal. The Germans would blow up roads and bridges, and then withdraw, then the Finns would 'attack' the empty positions. As the Germans had agreed to leave civilian houses and even non-military industry intact this worked quite well. Soviet pressure however led to the Finns attacking for real which started the actual fighting war. So number of civilian lives lost from that war were limited however damage to the civilian buildings was pretty much total.

[@soldierorsomething]

I remember some lapland veteran pilots telling a story that they would miss their bombing targets on purpose (against the germans on lapland war), so that they would not kill any germans but once the war turned to a real conflict then there was no mercy

[@vaxilys96]

Outstanding comment! Thank you for your time and information.

[@adrianshephard378]

Based finn

[@adrianshephard378]

@Jack Wehrung I think this is just one mishap, TIK is still great

[@peterlance6313]

Great comment! Some disagreements/additions though. Completely agree, among other things, the part about ports. When reading primary sources Finnish railroad network was the bottleneck not ports. There were problems even for Finns to transfer troops because of the congested rails furthermore caused issues prioritising transport between Germans and Finns. Caused some planned operations to be rejected as they were not logistically possible. On the other hand about the road network in the North for example German General Erfurth felt towards to the end of war that Finns had given too pessimistic view of the logistics up there and it could have been possible to operate with more divisions attacking Murmansk and in hindsight they should have done that. Finnish troops were very much involved in the fighting in the South part of the Northern zone. Corps commanded by Hjalmar Siilasvuo under the German command was notorious for having heavy losses and being involved in the action during the attack phase. Reducing Mannerheim to just a military role and not being involved in politics is in my opinion just plain wrong. Though nominally functioning democracy all the important political decision, pre (for example the agreement of the transit rights of German soldiers was never voted in the parliament but the parliament were notified about "factual thing which had already happened") and during the continuation war, were made by extremely small circle including only few ministers (one of them being Mannerheims pal Defence Minister General Walden), the president and Mannerheim. Especially towards the end of the war Mannerheim wanted to distant himself from some of the decisions on the guise that he is not a politician but that was more about indecisiveness from his part. No major political decision was made without consulting Mannerheim. What comes about the goal of the attack, it was heavily influenced by Germans just before the Operation Barbarossa started. Finnish troops were organised to first attack the Karelian Isthmus, but Germans told Finns to change their priority to getting to Svir which suited their plans better. And thus just before the war started Finland transferred their troops and for example the command post of the Karelian army towards North of Ladoga as per the request by Germans. On the side note the whole Churchill letter and Mannerheim reply to it, which resulted in the war declaration was a product of misunderstanding. Finland had already halted the advance as required by Churchill, but Mannerheim did not clearly communicate that in his reply. At the time Ryti was worried about the wording of the letter not making that clear but the original wording of Mannerheim stood.

[@santeri227]

I was told in school that Finland went beyond the territories lost in The Winter War just to have better defensive positions and to have an advantage in becoming peace negotiations. Great video TiK! I approve it, as a Finn 👍

[@ottovalkamo1]

Yes, for example: look at the front in Aunuksenkarjala/Onega, 1. Petrozavodsk or Petroskoi was a soviet city in the soviet territory but it had an airfield where they bombed mikkeli and helsinki 2. We can all see and agree that the finnish advance to the Sver river line shortened the front a lot, between lake laatokka and lake ääninen, freeing up a lot of men back home. This is by a military standpoint plain obvious, go gain a strategic advantage and a shorter frontline, because the finnish population was so small compared to the USSR.

[@gargravarr2]

It wasn't just about defensive positions and peace negotiations. They wanted to secure the three-isthmus line as their eastern border, as that would be easy to defend against any invader from the east in the future. They did reach their goals on the Karelian and Svir ishtmuses, but stopped their advance before reaching the Lake Onega - White Sea isthmus. TIK already explained some of Mannerheim's reasons for that, and diplomatic pressure from the Allies was another. In the end, the Finnish advance to the Svir hurt them in the peace negotiations, as the Allies weren't as favorable towards Finland due to them advancing past their old borders. But operationally, it did buy them time during the 1944 Soviet offensive.

[@Cragified]

Going further then you want is actually a standard tactic for peace negotiations. The real problem was the association with Nazi Germany. Russia was fighting for their existence so having 'ally' of Nazi Germany on another front made any potential negotiation quite hard. Plus when you look at the whole the Germans and Finish cooperated and supplied each other far more then the Germans and Japanese ever did. So they were by far more an Axis member then Japan which is the big associated other Axis power.

[@Zagskrag]

I don't think it's even remotely reasonable to expect a belligerent country to just stop at a line on the map and then pretend that the war is over. In fact, I think Finland didn't commit hard enough to the war, and they should've continued the offensive to threaten the Murmansk railway and to complete Leningrad's encirclement. If you're in a war, it's common sense to try your hardest to win it, not just take some land of negligible strategic value, and then leaving the rest of the war to your allies. But then again we'll never know how willing the Soviets would've been to allow Finland to peace out if they had done that, so I guess it's a good thing I wasn't in charge.

[@andrebas1124]

of course, peacefull Finnland with nazi svastics on their tanks and planes occupied Soviet territory because they were very peaceful and wanted to improve defence.

[@stormie123]

Finland - Caught between a Reich and a hard place :P

[@nicholasconder4703]

Dare I say it was a war of the Reds, Reich and Blues?

[@leonardeuler9592]

Maneirheim, the man who proposed the Brits to attack Leningrad in 1921.

[@AlcasSin]

@@leonardeuler9592 u

[@AlcasSin]

@@leonardeuler9592 u

[@patricklundh4738]

@@thebigfeller No one has, as far as I know, said that Mannerheim ordered an attack. That part was on the Nazis, not on the Finn's. The Finns hadn't even close enough resources to attack Leningrad. But no doubt the Finns formed the northwestern part of the encirclement thus participating in the murder of 1,1 million civilians of the Leningrad population. Not a very uplifting behaviour of the Finns, is it?

[@Caldera01]

What do you mean by "If it talks like an Axis if it walks like an Axis"? Finland didn't have a fascist dictatorship, nor did we commit any genocides. What are you implying here? Most importantly, they did not sign the tri-partite agreement or join any other wars with Axis members. The facts are these: Finland knew there would be another war against USSR, it would either be them alone or have Germany as an ally, there was no third option. The other option was whether they wanted to have a longer ceasefire and have the USSR attack us, or launch an attack themselves on their terms. Finland refused the deportation of Jews that the Germans wanted, they also refused tactical orders from Berlin when Germany wanted Finland to be more aggressive. How much more anti axis can you get while still fighting on the same side of the war? Thirdly, if that's the only requirement in your mind for 'being part of the Axis', then you should count the USSR as part of the Axis too since they attacked Poland together with Germany. And if you try to claim that it doesn't count, because USSR has a different ideology, different culture, different religion and they went into war against each other later, then you should apply all of that to Finland as well. If the world considered Finland to be part of the Axis like you do, then why didn't the USA declare war? Why didn't the UK make any battle plans against Finland? Why did Churchill send strategic advice to help Finland, if they're part of the Axis?

[@adrianshephard378]

Finland resisted communism like a chad

[@rihc3584]

More facts about Finland: I think Finland is the first democracy. 1906 in New Zealand women can for the first time vote, but only men. Also later in 1906 Finish women can vote, but they can vote for women too. Finland was then under Russians. 1917 Finland declared independence. 1939 Russia had "winter war" with Finland. In June 1941 Russians bombed Finnish towns and Finland was in war again with Russia. Then happened something, that has not ever happened after or before. UK declared war to Finland. It was the first and hopefully the last time Finland's

[@lotus95t]

While I understand this is a short overview of the conditions prior to, during and after the Continuation War, there are major components that have been left out which answer some of the questions why Finland became involved in the first place. Clearly the Finns didn't trust the Soviets and correctly assumed that Finland would at some point become a Soviet target again. Finland internally had two competing ideas as to why a loose alliance with Germany was a benefit. The first was President Ryti's vision of a Greater Finland, where all Finnic peoples would be under Finnish protection. The second was was Mannerheim's vision of recovery of Karelia. These two visions clashed when the military saw no reason for a Greater Finland. Mannerheim had no intention of being used to support a German invasion of the Soviet Union, he had very specific goals he wanted to achieve and being part of a broad invasion and occupation of the Soviet Union wasn't one of them. From the German perspective being able to attack the Soviet Union through Finland did have some advantages, though a far greater advantage to a loose German - Finnish alliance was eliminating the Soviet fleet from the Baltic and securing raw materials and other goods from Sweden.It also isolated Sweden and keep them in the German sphere of influence. Lets also remember the US never declared war on Finland. So the argument that the Allies were in any form of agreement on Finland simply isn't true.

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

I think you're wrong about Ryti. He was more like Neville Chamberlain (under attack). The Greater Finland ideology was supported by Paavo Talvela and the fascists (Patriotic People's Movement), who received only about 6% of the vote. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paavo_Talvela

[@lotus95t]

@UCfNM6KzWZowvFDvby7laIhw I think you misunderstood what Ryti meant by Greater Finland - he didn't mean incorporating new territory into Finland, but acting as a guarantor of freedom for the Finnic peoples in Estonia, Latvia, etc. This idea came from his proposal of a Nordic defense union in the late 1930's. Read this to get an idea of Ryti's thoughts. - history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943v03/d148

[@MasterFeidn]

Don't forget that the US pressured finland to stop the attack on the Murmansk railway road...how nice the US treats other nations...

[@bige2220]

well there are many facets to this indeed, one of the major reasons, food and supplies. After the Winter War many Finns were starving due to the war brought on by Stalin. Also Finns new Stalin was already planning to come back in to Finland. After the Winter war in Nov 1940, Hitler and Molotov had meeting in Berlin and Molotov even stated that the ussr was planning to take care of the Finnish "question". Finland found out about these meetings and got the intel. However Finns already knew this was a most likely a plan for Stalin regardless of hearing of this intel. So in answer to your query, yes the Finns had many reasons for their actions and most all of them for the safety, security and defense of their country.

[@anton2192]

"You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave"

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Are you describing the lockup?

[@anton2192]

@@TheImperatorKnight No, it's about the finnish position in the war as you described it :D

[@nottoday3817]

Ah, good ol Eagles

[@ASTROPLANET13]

@@TheImperatorKnightOrly (comrade Eagles) - "Welcome to the soviet gulag oh yeah. Such a lovely spade (such a lovely spade), such a lovely pace."

[@ece5925]

AnToN hahahah

[@billbolton]

When considering 'co belligerents' the USSR were co belligerents with Nazi Germany against Poland, territory taken from Poland wasn't restored, the Molotov Ribbentrop pact gave the green light to the USSR invading Finland in the Winter War. Finland had already been fighting against the USSR when the USSR was a co belligerent with Germany; Finland then being a co belligerent with Germany against the USSR seems like opportunism rather than a convergence of ideals and a desire to defeat international socialism. The allies Britain and France proposed sending troops to help fight the USSR, so would have been co belligerents against the USSR with Finland. The Finns were more reacting to circumstances created by larger powers than driving events.

[@andrebas1124]

they tried to sit on 2 chairs

[@MrDomingo55]

Territory taken by USSR was not restored to Poland because Poland had no right to it. Poland occupied these lands when Russia was in middle of civil war (and western intervention) and had no ability to defend itself. Territories taken by Poland were parts of Belorussia and Ukraine. If you think that Poland should have it back because it occupied these in far dim past then by that logic Poland even has a claim to Moscow itself which they occupied at one time.

[@billbolton]

@@MrDomingo55 thanks, the point I was making was not about the 'rightful' borders of Poland but the changing allegiances at the time; the USSR invading Poland along with Nazi Germany could easily have lead to war between Britain and the USSR. Poland has changed in size through history from the heights of the Commonwealth to it's partitions and rebirth.

[@yzmey42113]

@@MrDomingo55 Then Russia can claim entire Poland, because it was part of the Russian empire ))

[@vandeheyeric]

@@MrDomingo55 "Territory taken by USSR was not restored to Poland because Poland had no right to it." The Treaty of Riga says otherwise. The Poles had AT LEAST as much right to the territory as a thoroughly illegitimate, totalitarian rogue regime (the Bolsheviks) did. Especially since Polish territorial claims at Riga were modest and in fact much less than the Bolsheviks were prepared to cede, *specifically because* Poland's National Democrats wanted land that either had a history of Polish in habitation or that they deemed could be Polonized. "Poland occupied these lands when Russia was in middle of civil war (and western intervention) and had no ability to defend itself." Stop peddling Bolshevik Propaganda. The conflict between the nascent Polish and Bolshevik states ORIGINATED WITH the decision by the Bolsheviks in late 1918 to expand against all their neighbors, starting with Estonia (a nation that was no threat to Russia- Bolshevik or otherwise- and which had committed no aggressive actions against Russia prior to being attacked). This played out across the Western Frontier in Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, which helps explain why the Bolsheviks initially won most of their victories. The Polish counterstrike you speak of came in 1919, after a tentative ceasefire between the Poles and Bolsheviks was ending and Pilsudski-correctly- recognized Lenin had no intention of honoring. And notably, *this didn't work.* Not only did the Bolsheviks possess the means to defend themselves, they counterstruck the Polish-Ukrainian forces and nearly got to Warsaw before overextending themselves and then being counterattacked more or less to where the peace lines established by the Treaty of Riga were. The Bolsheviks were not victims. They had even less right to the territory than the Poles did and they recognized this in writing at Riga. " Territories taken by Poland were parts of Belorussia and Ukraine. " True but see above. " If you think that Poland should have it back because it occupied these in far dim past then by that logic Poland even has a claim to Moscow itself which they occupied at one time." This is ironic considering the only logic that gives the Bolshevik regime and its various puppet states a superior claim to it is that a totalitarian, aggressive government established by coup and which had violated every promise it had put to paper somehow deserves Belorussia and Ukraine more because more of its members were ethnically Belorussian and Ukrainian. This doesn't wash when you remember that the Bolsheviks simultaneously established "client republics" manned by people of the "right ethnicity" while mass murdering those who didn't comport. And indeed they knew this. Which is why the "Polish Operation" involved ethnic cleansing of Poles from East of the Curzon Line, precisely because the Soviets knew what they had agreed to at Riga and while they didn't have any serious intent at honoring it, they also recognized that their actions would not hold up to scrutiny in light of it. So better to kill or expel everybody and force a fait accompli.

[@carbonara2144]

It is hardly fair to overlook the Winter War 1939-40. Finland was ill-prepared to withstand the unprovoked soviet attack. Nazi-Germany blocked weapons and ammo shipments and incoming volunteers during the war, and had given its acceptance for Stalin to conquer Finland. Germany for example denied selling of Zeiss optics to vickers tanks that Finland had ordered from Britain. Thats how good buddies Nazi-Germany was to Finland. To the astonishment of all, and to the disappointment of TIK, the mighty Red Army was stopped and took horrendous casualties. Bolsheviks took enough land only to bury their dead. Some divisions were completely annihilated in encirclement battles in freezing winter conditions. War was costly for small Finland too. Casualties were heavy for the small population, there were very little shells left for the artillery. There were rumours of France and Britain sending 100 000 men to help Finland. Humiliated Red Army had to end war quick and Stalin wanted to negotiate peace. Finns had to cede some land and accept bitter terms. This caused the Nazi-Germanys leaders to be sure that they would demolish Soviet Union with "a hard kick to the door". After the Winter War Finland looked for support. France and Britain were unable to help. Nazi-Germany was now suddenly interested in supporting Finland, as they wanted to attack Soviet Union. Finland had no choice but to accept, or let soviets take over Finland. It is necessary to understand this background, the history, if you genuinely want to understand what happened in the past. Cherry-picking facts wont give you true picture. Also, Mannerheim knew of the brutality of nazis and in his mind they were barbarians. He knew of their plan to murder the population of St Petersburg/Leningrad. Mannerheim had been a member of the Chevalier Guard in St Petersburg before communists took power in Russia. He did not want the city destroyed. He forbade all attacks against the city. You should know this. Do you get money from Putin? Otherwise it is hard to understand why you support his views of history so much. Finland had field synagogues for its jewish soldiers. They were brave warriors and in some cases saved german soldiers, who wanted to give them Iron Crosses. Strange that such things happen in an axis member-country - is it not?

[@markustaitokari899]

Solzhenitsyn in his own book "Two Hundred Years Together" mentioned that the first gas vans were not invented in Germany, but were first used by the Polish people. According to him, their invention belonged to one NKVDist, Berg. He can only be found in Russian so far: ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3,_%D0%98%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Vasily Mikhailovich Blokhin (Russian: Васи́лий Миха́йлович Блохи́н, 7 January 1895 - 3 February 1955) was a Soviet Russian Major-General who served as the chief executioner of the Stalinist NKVD under the administrations of Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov and Lavrentiy Beria, who after their respective falls from power were executed later by Blokhin himself. Hand-picked for the position by Joseph Stalin in 1926, Blokhin led a company of executioners that performed and supervised numerous mass executions during Stalin's reign, mostly during the Great Purge and World War II.[2] He is recorded as having executed tens of thousands of prisoners by his own hand, including his killing of about 7,000 Polish prisoners of war during the Katyn massacre in spring 1940,[2][3] making him the most prolific official executioner and mass murderer in recorded world history.[2][4] Forced into retirement following the death of Stalin, Blokhin died in 1955, officially by suicide. Contents 1 Early life and career 2 Role in the Katyn massacre 3 Retirement and death 4 Honours and awards 5 References 6 Notes maanpuolustus.net/threads/punainen-terrori-bolshevikkien-ja-kommunistien-rikokset-keskustelu-historiasta.4353/ Purges in the Red Army Juhani Putkinen translated excerpts from the book: Viktor Suvorov - The Purge Page 22: “The convenient “truth” about the purges in the Red Army in 1937-1938 was planned during Khrushchev’s time and hammered into our heads. It went something like this: Tukhachevsky was a brilliant strategist; Tukhachevsky already foresaw war with Germany in 1935 and warned of it; Tukhachevsky pleaded for a change in the army’s armament, but the foolish Stalin and his henchman Voroshilov rejected Tukhachevsky’s proposals, unable to understand and appreciate them; Blücher, Yakir, Uborevitch, Putna, Alksnis, Vãcietis, Dõbenko and all the others were giants both in their ideas and in their work. Of course, they had no conspiracy in their plans; Hitler's intelligence decided to leave the Red Army without its leaders just before the war, to eliminate Tukhatsevsky and other geniuses. The Germans fed the document, and the morbidly suspicious Stalin believed it was a forgery... The purge in the army took on catastrophic proportions. Three out of five Soviet marshals were eliminated. Five out of five first-class army commanders. Twelve out of twelve second-class army commanders. Etc. In total, 40,000 major commanders were eliminated; Stalin killed the geniuses, leaving the fools behind. The crushing of the Red Army in 1941 was a direct consequence of the purges of 1937-1938. In 1941, the vast majority of the NL commanders did not have the experience necessary for the purges, since they had been in their posts for less than a year... history-maps.com/fi/story/History-of-the-Soviet-Union In the Winter War, 200,000-300,000 Russians died, according to Russian sources, Nikita Khrushchev mentions that out of 1.5 million Red Soldiers sent to Finland, 1 million died. Current historical research, based on researched facts, indicates the number of those who died to be around 170,000-200,000. I did not flnd the source but this over million of 1,5 Million Death or Not came back tells same as 5 times less "truth of deaths" and also Huge amount Not death/not got finnish prisons or not wounded but not came back of russian's Red army. They were not escaped for the West and not came back only reason is death of them. US

[@alexfilma16]

Don’t worry. I'm sure the war will be over by Christmas, lads.

[@calumdeighton]

Didn't we hear that, in 1914? (Sarcasm)

[@superdogmeatmeat]

They never tell you exactly which Christmas though.

[@calumdeighton]

@@superdogmeatmeat That's a line I remember from 'Generation of War'. When some eastern front vets, talk back to the new blood recruits sent to them around a camp fire.

[@PeptoBismarck244]

@@calumdeighton Generation War*

[@garank4971]

@Danny Treffers the war is over by birthday of of our glorius party leader

[@HistoryHustle]

So funny, I was just reading about it today and here's the new TIK video.

[@chip9649]

Hi stefan!

[@russochypriota]

Cool to see you browsing similar channels! Would be interested to get your take on the actions in this region (and interwar tragic history as well, which it is arguably more famous for).

[@honkeydolemite9025]

Beauty of Rytis agreement for not going for separate peace is that Finland still was constitutional republic. He made the personal sacrifice to make deal with Hitler and then he resigned after the grain and weapon deliveries so Finland could sue for separate peace.

[@RustinCohle-c1x]

Yes, Ive been waiting for a good video on the Continuation war.

[@dbassman27]

There was no persecution of Jews by Finland, unlike many other countries in Nazi Germany's orbit. On June 22nd, 1941 the Soviet Union launched air raids against targets in Finland, well prior to an attack against the Soviet Union by Finnish forces. The United States never declared war against Finland. Finland attempted to strengthen ties with the Western Allies both before and after the Winter War but was rebuffed. Once Germany had occupied Denmark and Norway, Finland was unable to receive any aid from Great Britain (not that the British were offering much help in any event), and the United Sates, while sympathetic, was unable offer much material support and realistically was too far away. The Finnish government had an obligation to defend its people from a predatory neighbour in the Soviet Union. Stalin had made it clear that his goal was to reacquire territories that had previously been considered Russian (which included the whole of Finland). So I am not sure what other choices the Finnish government had.

[@villesaarenketo2506]

Finland did send jews to germany.

[@ohhaihaihaihai]

How about "not creating death camps in occupied Karelia and Petrozavodsk"?

[@dbassman27]

@@villesaarenketo2506 Yes, it has been documented that 8 Austrian Jewish refugees (not Finnish citizens) were deported into Germany custody in November 1942. In 2000 an official apology was made by the Finnish Prime Minister. This incident was reported in the Finnish media just after it happened. It was universally condemned, and never happened again. Approximately 500 Jewish refugees were sheltered by Finland during the war. Heinrich Himmler twice went to Finland to ask them to hand over their Jews. He was told in no uncertain terms that was not going to happen. As I stated, there was no official Finnish policy of persecution of Jews. In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary.

[@minsevon6151]

If you want to see very interesting research of Jews in Finland WW2, please see this video. Very rare document. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m57KgK2aZdOaZ6M

[@dbassman27]

@@minsevon6151 Thanks. I watched it and found it very informative and well done.

[@carnum1159]

do the Lapland War now

[@pianistanton1]

Is it the flag of separatist movement of the Vladivostok region ?

[@stevendurham9996]

Lapps are cool.

[@jackwhite9759]

Weather

[@tonttu7979]

@@stevendurham9996 Sámi people*

[@calbackk]

The outset of this video is completely wrong. It is amazing how hard it seems to be to comprehend Finland’s situation in 1940-41 even today. The reason for the continuation war was NOT the urge to take back lost ground, but Soviet’s continued pressure on Finland. Finland desperately needed some ally, be it the devil himself. And the only one available was Germany. Once the Operation Barbarossa started Finland took part in order mainly to get better positioned to defend itself against another Russian attack that was to come sooner or later. Basically this was Finland’s goal, which was also more or less achieved, albeit with even more loss of territory.

[@calbackk]

B A , Actually this is exactly what Finland did NOT do. It is very well documented that Mannerheim personally did not want anything to do with the German siege of Leningrad.

[@WhiskyandBacon]

@B A In september 1941 the Finnish army reached the Finnish-Soviet border from 1939,32 km from Leningrad.Then they halted their offensive,and went into defence position.Finland did NOT take part in the siege of Leningrad.Thats a old Stalinist myth.

[@WhiskyandBacon]

@B A So Finland should not have tried to liberate Finnish territory (which Stalin stole from them,in his aggression war against Finland 1939-40) because that would mean a blockade of Leningrad?

[@MasterFeidn]

@@calbackk And it backfired, cause finland lost the territory of the first war in 39/40 eventually. Who knows what would have happend if the fins would have assisted in the leningrad siege and closed down the murmansk road in the crucial years 41/42

[@calbackk]

@@MasterFeidn , No it did not backfire, because Finland remained independent. This was quite an achievement in it self, considering the overwhelming power Finland was up against. Regarding who knows what would hav happened if Finland had participated in Germanys siege of Leningrad: This is a rather popular subject of counter factual history writers. It may well be that Finlands participation would have tipped the scales and Germany would have defeated the Russians. This would have prolonged the war considerably and resulted in a lot more fighting in the west. But a power as crazy and detached from reality as Nazi Germany, would have lost eventually, no matter what.

[@GunnyKeith]

This next season of BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD is going to be awesome. Great job & thanks for all you do for us. Oh, shout out to Anton & brad

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Not sure when it will be, but was recording some of the audio for it today :)

[@GunnyKeith]

@@TheImperatorKnight TIME IS NOT AN ISSUE, GETTING IT RIGHT IS. EVEN IF IT TAKES YOU AN EXTRA WEEK TO BRUSH UP & FINE TUNE YOUR FACTS. WHAT U DO IS AMAZING TIK. APPRECIATE YOU SIR. THANK U

[@aranos6269]

Seeing Finns situation they did very well. I see it as a triumph of diplomacy especially as they avoided being a vassal to ussr after wwii

[@kevinrein5623]

Diplomacy and deterrence by the fierce defence of their nation

[@Blazo_Djurovic]

Well what really helped them was that in the end Soviets would need to expend significant troops to crush them completely. This is unlike other minors which once Soviets broke the germans there they took their countries practically on march since their militaries were a lot weaker. And Fins didn't wait for Soviets to be knocking on their borders to switch side or peace out. They peaced out while they still had some chips. And that chip was dealing with those 200k Germans in the north. So a pretty good deal for the Soviets, they remove Fins from the fight officially AND make sure those Germans up north won't be a problem. And in the end of the day, after the war is over Stalin might have judged they could always find some reason to re-invade FInland if it was really necessary. Also I've heard Stalin respected Mannerheim so he probably trusted they'd hold their end of bargain.

[@artiombeknazaryan7542]

@@Blazo_Djurovic lol i don't think so. No one weill trust a back stabbing rat like Mannerheim. Eager to please Tzar, then his Nazi buddies and then Soviets ))) true finnish political prostitute. The real soviet insurance was the Red Army. Soviets had no intention to get Finland back, all they wanted to do is secure Leningrad and it seems Stalin was right when he started the winder war. Ht clearly predicted finnish behavior.

@@artiombeknazaryan7542 I predict you punch me. Then i punch you, you punch back, "WHAT DID I SAY!?" - nice logic. I also like the old "let's create puppet government because border needs to move 40km" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic - they even created karelo-finnish SSR en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelo-Finnish_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

[@kevinrein5623]

@@artiombeknazaryan7542 Lol keep coping, you wouldn't defend soviet and stalin если ты настоящий русский патриот

[@dancingwiththedarkness3352]

Finland used stripped down Brewster Buffalo F2A fighters in the continuation war, 459 kills against the Soviet airforce, for 15 losses. In the lower altitudes the Soviets preferred, the stripped Brewster could out turn and out climb faster aircraft than itself. They increased it's armament to 6 .50 caliber wing guns in addition to the. 50 and .30 caliber guns in the nose. Probably they liked the Brewster for the same reasons the Soviets liked the Airacobra and later king cobra, very heavy fire power and good low altitude handling. It's advantage of being a carrier aircraft, meant it was built stronger than land aircraft were and it's rotary engine made it easy to maintain as long as they had spare parts. With a aircraft considered inadequate by everyone else who used it, the fins turned it into a fearsome reaper of Soviet aircraft. The quality of men, often more than makes up for outdated equipment when used aggressively by them. In Finish hands it's kill rate was 32 to 1. Sometimes a nation faces a terrible choice, caught between two greater powers there is no good choice.

[@SweatyFeetGirl]

The actual kill rate was 26:1 but thats still amazing!

[@trololoev]

@@SweatyFeetGirl if kill rate was that good, why they lost both war?

[@SweatyFeetGirl]

@@trololoev because there was too many 😂

[@trololoev]

@@SweatyFeetGirl Axis powers, part of which was Finland has bigger population, bigger army then all Eastern front.

[@trololoev]

@@SweatyFeetGirl Mannerheim says that Finland lose because they has lack of people, at the end of the war they invite in army every male up to 60 year old. So Finland lost much more then they say, you can see how many they lost, if look at total population decrease. All real military losses Finland classified. p.s. they didn't lost anyone and receive big part of Soviet territory, if agree at peaceful territory change from Soviet Union.

[@ottovalkamo1]

TIK, in reality the Finnish forces in the Karjalan armeija, east karelian/aunuksen karajaln armeija advanced to the Sver/Syväri river, because it was a much better defencive line, between the 2 large lakes compared to just forest cover. Also Petrozavodsk(Petroskoi) had a Soviet airbase, that was used by the Soviet airforce to bomb Mikkeli and Helsinki between the 23rd and 25th of June.

[@ottovalkamo1]

Also, Finland had relatively goof relations with britain. Finnish high command did not want to jeopradise this by attacking the murmansk railway basically.

[@andrebas1124]

sure, peacefull fins joined the Axis only because they were peacefull

[@andrebas1124]

probably, it would be better if they attack Murmansk railway. There were still 2 other routs for land lease: through far east and Iran. But that attack would probably lead to lost of finish independance because there would be harder to get a peace

@@andrebas1124 Peaceful finns didn't actually join axis, but they did ally with Germany due to Soviet Union not letting them be peaceful by invading in 1939. Soviet Union reaped what it sowed.

[@СергейРублев-т7я]

Today, the Finns do not see that the cause of the war in 1941 was not the winter war, as propaganda says (because it contradicts the Moscow treaty), but the position of the Finnish government, which professed revanchism and imperialism.

[@FulmenTheFinn]

Hi TIK, some comments and thoughts of mine related to parts of your video: 1:10 Post-Winter War the Finnish materiel situation was actually much better than before the war. During the Interim Peace of 1940-41 Germany did sell Finland materiel, but planes, armour, infantry AT weapons etc. came later during the Continuation War. 1:50 Finnish nickel was vital in the sense that Germany didn't have to develop alternate sources for it, or a substitute resource. They could perhaps have done so, though likely not to the same scale compared to the amount of nickel they received from Finland. Finland's Petsamo area contained the world's second largest deposit of developed sulfite ores of nickel (the largest being in Sudbury, Canada). 2:40 Finnish ports being blocked by ice 5 months of the year is definitely an exaggeration even by 1940s standards. E.g. during the Winter War Finnish shipping continued to operate, in mid-winter. 4:55 No, the goal was to take geographically defensively favourable positions, and this included pushing past the lands lost in the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940. The Finns had several end-goal scenarios in mind. The best-case scenarios included Finland gaining parts or all of East Karelia. The worst-case scenarios included most of the pre-1940 borders, with some concessions to the Russians, coinciding with their 1939 demands. The reasons for the Finnish military advancing where it did was never "only to take the lost lands back". 5:30 There were 16 Finnish divisions, with the field army consisting of around 475k men (not sure if this is supposed to include the air force and navy, even though technically the term "army" excludes them). Are those 14 Russian divisions including the IIRC 2-3 divisions (plus a detachment of armour) stationed at Hanko? 6:10 the Finns didn't stop in late-July, they stopped in November-December (on the Karelian Isthmus circa September IIRC). The reason behind the Finnish halt in 1941 is relatively simple: the objective of reaching defensively favourable positions had been reached. There was some talk of a potential future advance to Sorokka (Belomorsk) from the south that'd take place circa March-April 1942 to permanently cut the Murmansk Railway, but this was not followed up with action due to American political pressure, despite such an operation having a high likelihood of success. 11:30 Fairly certain 16% is an exaggeration that might well include people like volunteer workers from the "Lotta Svärd" female auxiliary organisation. I've seen similar bloated figures before, including on sites like Wikipedia, that include people that definitely shouldn't be included in Finnish military strength figures. As stated before, the "field army" in June 1941 was about 475k men strong, or about 12.8% of the population. Adding other forces to that and we might be looking at 13-14%. 13:00 IIRC there weren't really any serious peace feelers before 1943-1944, because Germany was still too strong for Finland to get out of the war, and the Russians were likely to break any peace at the first opportune moment anyway. 14:10 I'd have to go digging through books again to verify this, but IIRC in September 1943 the Finnish field army was only around 250-350k strong. Late 1941-early 1942 they demobilized a lot of men due to issues with the harvest and the dire food situation in the country, and because the Finnish military objectives had been met. 14:57 Splitting hairs here I guess, but it wasn't exactly "back to where they started", rather the Russian "Karelian Offensive" of 1944 was stopped at roughly the same locations the Russians had been stopped in the Winter War about 4.5 years prior. 15:25 "Conditional surrender" usually means the other guy's military is defeated. This was not the case with Finland: her army in September 1944 was larger and stronger than it had been in all her history up to that point. In fact Finland could have gone on the offensive again and retaken the lands lost in 1944, but that'd likely result in another major Russian offensive in 1945, and overall just be a silly gamble; meanwhile Germany, Finland's only supplier of grain and modern materiel, was crumbling. It was geopolitics that forced Finland to sign peace, not a military defeat, because there wasn't one. Therefore I think "surrender" with its usually understood connotations is the wrong word to use here. 17:37 That's not really the case. Already in 1941 when it looked like Germany was going to win, Finland presented herself as a co-belligerent fighting her own war, one that was defensive in nature and separate of that of Germany's offensive war. Already then did Finland refuse to partake in aggression against Leningrad or permanently cut the Murmansk Railway. The Finnish position wasn't something they came up with once the Germans began clearly losing. Some errors with the map: the Hanko Front is not represented and the Finnish part of the Kalastajansaarento (Rybachi) Peninsula was ceded in 1940 and never retaken.

[@johnburns4017]

_"Finland presented herself as a co-belligerent fighting her own war, one that was defensive in nature and separate of that of Germany's offensive war."_ German troops were on Finnish soil fighting alongside Finns. The Germans were supplying Finland. I do not buy that.

[@FulmenTheFinn]

@@johnburns4017 Then you should read up on the circumstances of the Continuation War and the years leading up to it.

[@johnburns4017]

@@FulmenTheFinn I have. I do not trust Finnish sources. - In 1919 the Bolsheviks gave Finland independence, foolishly agreeing borders that were poor for Russian defence. - The USSR occupies, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia as part of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. - Pact gives Finland to the USSR, however, in 1939 the Soviet administration wanted the border of Finland further back as it was in artillery range of Leningrad, not wanting to occupy all of the country. - The Soviets offered a territory exchange in which the Soviets gave more away than what they would get. - The Finns said "no". - A war broke out. - The Soviets won. - The Soviets did not occupy all of Finland, as they did with the other three Baltic states. Neither taking Finland back into Russia. - The Finns signed an agreement with the USSR in 1940. - In June 1941 they broke the agreement attacking the USSR.

[@calbackk]

FulmenTheFinn . Thank you for your clarifications and corrections. They seem to be sorely needed.

[@simplicius11]

""Conditional surrender" usually means the other guy's military is defeated. This was not the case with Finland: her army in September 1944 was larger and stronger than it had been in all her history up to that point. In fact Finland could have gone on the offensive again and retaken the lands lost in 1944..." Heh, a good one... Is that why the Soviets placed a tank division and heavy artillery 15 km from Helsinki after the war? Some high ranking politician (i forgot the name) said in despair: "But that's like a holding a pistol at our head!!!" All of your political elite was tried and sentenced and the Soviets put Zhdanov in charge to control that. The Soviets censored the books and the films that you could read and watch. And you were happily printing the post marks with Lenin : )

[@OmaKayttajanimi]

It is unfortunate that you have to rely mainly on the Henrik Lunde's book as resource material. He had only quite superficial understanding of the political landscape in the area before, during and after the war. This has been pointed out in numerous book reviews.

[@robertalaverdov8147]

Germany's allies during the war: Italy; a nuisance that's more trouble than it's worth. Bulgaria, didn't lift a finger and then joins the Soviets as soon as they could. Croatia; raised 1 or 2 motivated though poorly equipped divisions. It's leadership and policies caused the rest of the Balkans to wage a protracted Guerrilla war that tied down an Entire Army group. So not worth it again! Hungary; loyal to the end but has little in the way of industry so it's divisions aren't well equipped. Also kept half it's army arrayed against your other Ally Romania. Romania; hates your other ally and keeps half it's army at home, poorly equipped and motivated. And switches sides as soon as it could. Finland; tags along hoping you'll have a quick victory but starts eyeing the exit as soon as things start to drag on. Doesn't really cooperate in waging total war against your enemy. Eventually declares war on you. Spain; demands half of Vichy territory in Africa even though they didn't do squat. Sends 1 division and pretends like you didn't help them win the Spanish civil war after WW2. Not really an ally but they were useless too. Japan; far away and decides to attack the biggest industrial power in the world and bring them into the war. Making your whole situation hopeless. If they had attacked the Soviets instead you'd maybe link up in Siberia. Instead you're in South America pretending to be a Catholic missionary.

[@soldierorsomething]

I think the japanese forces would have been defeated by the soviet siberian army groups since the japanese tanks were made out of paper, but attacking the americans was a bad idea as well

[@ArcticTemper]

Yeah, because the Germans were terrible diplomats.

[@morisco56]

Yeah it was germany carrying the team

[@oliverludwig6148]

You forgot Iraq, Slovakia and Vichy France.

[@TheVariag01]

Japan.. If they had attacked the Soviets.. actually they did In 1945 in 3 weeks and 3 days they lost and surrendered

[@omnipotent]

The Allied state of heads didn't think Finland was part of the Axis powers but a separate issue, that was evident in the discussions in the Tehran conference (the records are public). It was interesting to see you think so, but I might lean towards believing the Allies from back in the days though.

[@richard343s]

The Soviets were planning to attack Finland again after the winter war didn't go according to plan but was unwilling to do so without German approval while the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was still in affect.

[@artiombeknazaryan7542]

so you have solid proofs of the words you have spoken?

[@johnburns4017]

You are confused. The Soviets agreed a peace with Finland who broke it. They had no intention of attacking Finland. They could have occupied the whole country in 1940, but never.

[@johnburns4017]

@B A I prefer facts myself.

[@Leperzco]

@@artiombeknazaryan7542 Molotov asked Hitler's approval for new military actions against Finland on negotiations betweeen USSR and Nazi Germany on autumn 1940. Soviet Union wanted to conduct new military offensive against Finland after Winter War but Hitler did not wanted to approve it because he feared that Allies could use it as reason to invade Norway and Sweden and threat Swedish ore mines that were crucial for Germany. This link to article about those negotiations: www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000006258622.html

[@johnburns4017]

@@Leperzco Finns made a peace with the USSR, then broke it by attacking the USSR.

[@Kuhlfurst]

Excellent video. Perhaps you'll address it in your Tali-Ihantala video (which I'm excitedly looking forward to) but I believe one of the big things that contributed to "letting Finland go" with a negotiated peace was that even in the last weeks of the war Finland was still able to achieve notable military victories, such as Tali-Ihantala itself and the defeat of two Soviet divisions in Ilomantsi. Given that Germany was the real enemy in the war Stalin figured that there's just no point in grinding through Finland if they were apparently going to fight for every inch of the country. Turning Finland red just wasn't worth the months of it would probably take when those men could be storming the Reichstag. I'm reading the memoir of the then economy minister about Finland's peace negotiations, and even though I know how it all ends it's like reading a horror story with how tense it is.

[@soldierorsomething]

Not only that, our civil guard units were stashing & hiding weapons all over the country just in case the soviets would come in and occupy the whole nation, so the soviets would have had to fight against partisan units for years to come

[@janii.1271]

Hello Kuhlfurst, I'm looking for new books to read. May I ask what is the title of that memoir?

[@Kuhlfurst]

@@janii.1271 Väinö Tanner: "Suomen tie rauhaan 1943-44"

[@mechantl0up]

Feathers McGraw In 1944, the Finnish defense totally exhausted the Siviet attacking force. They simply could not carry on attacking. They tried to the last, though. The Finns’ combined use of artillery, air firce and radio intelligence was during Tali-Ihantala the pinnacle of WW2 combined arms prowess. The Germans were taking notes and tried to learn the best they could from what they saw.

[@simplicius11]

@@mechantl0up "The Germans were taking notes and tried to learn the best they could from what they saw." HaHaHa lol

[@jamestheotherone742]

Nations don't have friends, only interests. Finland wasn't in the Axis because it was not a party to the Tripartite Pact.

[@Paciat]

Soviets were axis till 1941. Finland, just like Belgium was neutral.

[@jamestheotherone742]

@@Paciat That is not true. Germany and the USSR had a separate treaty, otherwise the Soviets would have been obliged to assist Italy, and things with Japan would have been... awkward. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was purely a temporary convenience for both sides. They had zero sociopolitical commonality.

[@Paciat]

@@jamestheotherone742 Heres another temporary convenience for both sides: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipetsk_fighter-pilot_school en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_tank_school But yes, I know they planned to backstab each other. "Axis" wasnt an alliance but a bunch of aggressive countries with common enemies. Both the Molotov Ribbentrop pact and the 1941 Soviet Japanese pact are both betrayals of the Anti-Comintern Pact. German propaganda had no issues on blaming stuff on Italians, and Hitler openly said Japanese are his allies only out of need. Hitler didnt help Italy cause he had to, but to secure his flank, so that Britain wont open a whole front in Balkans. And Italy joined the war against France and Britain, cause they expected those countries would soon surrender.

[@jamestheotherone742]

@@Paciat From your link; "With the rise of the Nazis to power in January 1933, the ideological gap between fascist Germany and the communist Soviet Union became too large and the fighter school at Lipetsk was closed on 15 September 1933."

[@Paciat]

@botiboy "It was just win/win deal of two enemies." So was the British and Soviet alliance. And many see Soviet as allies. "How can be Communist far left and National Socialist far right country can be at the same side?" Ask Mussolini. He was a communist before he invented fascism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Political_journalist,_intellectual_and_socialist The radicals sit on the opposite sides so that they wont start a fist fight with each other. But that does not mean that they are opposite views on everything. Fascism, Nazism and Communism were created on the basis of the same socialist theories and unhappiness caused by WWI.

[@wyattcorbin1629]

TIK, I have an interesting idea that you could do. From September of 1939, explain what you would have done as Germany to accomplish its goals with the reality of history being present. It would be fascinating.

[@erikthomsen4768]

The real problem with the grand strategy was the mutually exclusive goals of Germany. On one hand they want the then Polish territories back. But to accomplish that would course rest of Europe to go into war mode. Including France and the United Kingdom. On the other hand: Russia could only be accessed by land through Poland or Romania. Both of which would result in the previous problem. Do you see what I’m getting at?

[@Yora21]

The last point to really make a change was 30th August 1939.

[@nottoday3817]

lol. Nothing. I mean, statistically speaking, comparing numbers of divisions, quality of equipment and all of that, Germany should have lost the war by Christmas. Like, literally. Their whole force was in Poland. All that was left was for France and Britain to send in their forces and occupy Rheinland and Bavaria and then see what to do further. If Germany turned around and faced the French and the British, USSR might have changed their opinion on the West and smashed them from behind. But no. UK and France hid behind the Maginot line, France got obliterated so USSR thought: those are a bunch of idiots, we'll stick to the pact, build up our forces so we can face the fascists at full strength

[@beefy1212]

Wyatt Corbin assuming USSR was still the end goal, I would have done everything exactly the same except never switch to bombing London, and then after sacking Greece, I would have stormed across into Turkey, secured the chromium mines and swept down on the Middle East from the north while attacking Egypt from the west, seized Iran which already had axis leanings, cut the canal, that would have solved the oil crisis in short order, and thrown England into total chaos, then rather than encourage Japan to attack the US launched a full blown offensive from both sides into India, secure an oil pipeline to Japan, and then launch a 3 sided assault into Russia Japan keeping Siberian troops pinned in place while Germany, Italy hungry Romania Finland and Germany attacked through the caucuses and Eastern Europe into the Soviet Union, with Iranian oil and the soviets without fuel Germany would have been on much better footing against the red army and the UK would have been crippled without an Air Force or an oil supply. Access to the Nile and Tigris and Euphrates valleys would have given ready access to large amounts of food that could have supplied the army, and prevented them from living off the land (if they could figure out the transportation anyway). Air bases in the “Stans” could have disrupted transportation abilities for the soviets and/or provided another route into Russia. It took the soviets about a year to get their act together I am not certain they would have gotten it together without Siberian reserves and no oil. I also would have integrated axis forces into a more cohesive force adding Romanian and hungry forces into each division. Lastly I would have taken great pains to not have Japan attack the US and definitely would not have declared war on the US in support if they did. If you want a more historical answer simply directing the main thrust to the caucuses from the get go and getting to the oil a year sooner and in a meaningful way likely would have done it. Germany needed oil above almost all else and anything that delayed them from that was a distraction.

[@oliverludwig6148]

@@beefy1212 Some historians argue, that a North African campaign up to Turkey wouldn't have been feasible anyways due to logistical constraints.

[@scorpionWhite]

Very cursory video (OK time is short). But one essential issue must to say: Finland never surrendered. Finns designed very tough peace agreement but never surrendered!

[@LevitatingCups]

brits also promised a lot of troops in the winter war, which turned out to be just a bluff, so the reason to dis-trust the brits had a reason too (somewhere around 20-60k depends what sources you get it from, usual number turns out to be 40k)

[@vandeheyeric]

It was never "just a bluff." While the British weren't acting out of altruism- given the possibility of occupying Swedish mines to cut off German support- they were prepared to fight alongside the Finns, as were the French. The plan was scuttled by the Swedes refusing to allow the Allies transit.

[@livincincy4498]

Thanks !!! I had no idea about the feelings of Austria. The Finland time line after the winter war was something I knew little about.

[@andrewdurand339]

In October 1941, the US threatened that if Finland severed the Murmansk Railroad, there would be severe economic repercussions. Given Finland had mobilized 17% of its population at that time and nobody was there to collect the harvest, and many Finnish generals said they thought they could have pushed on further when the offensive was called off in November, I think that's a factor.

[@Axisjampa]

Great video TIK. I like the Q&A videos under half hour format. Good job.

[@sampsanyman162]

Either way Finland taking half of East Karelia was a wise thing to do. If Germany wins then you have Greater Finland.. If Germany loses then you have more land to fall back on.

[@disieh]

I remember school teachers and old veterans sometime saying the point of going past the lost territories was getting more leverage for peace negotiations. Winter war taught that Soviets didn't mess around when it came to territorial demands.

[@psychosneighbor1509]

What a strange coincidence. I was just going to request an in-depth video on The Continuation War. My grandfather(R.I.P.) was a rifleman with the Finnish coastal artillery during that fight. He told me stories of fighting off waves of Soviet marines on Teikaarisaari(sp?) -- now Igrivyy island(near Chulkovo) until they were overrun and the few of them that were left had to swim from island to island to get back to the mainland. He also took part in the fighting to expel the Germans from Finland. While this isn't really an in-depth video, I'm crossing my fingers in hopes you can expound on some of what he told me in future videos. Finding many details on my own has been difficult to say the least. As a side: My grandmother(still with us and living in the US) was 15 when the commies overtook her hometown and family farm near Viipuri(now Vyborg) during The Winter War. She's still bitter...and rightfully so, I suppose... Thanks, TIK. Your work is awesome! :)

[@p.n7524]

Finland really didn't have choise Russia starts both wars and only place Finland could get help was Germany. So that was easy choice and Germany did't want to help -39. Finland leaders did't like Hitler or Germany politics but many think Germany army was impressive.

[@jimwind7589]

My X is a Fin and co-belligerents is the "party line". "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Finland did what she had to do to keep her independence. Being a history buff I remember walking up to Uurainen Church and seeing the graves of 30? men just outside the front door. 1/4 killed during the Winter War and 3/4 KIA in the continuation war? It has been 30 years. I was shocked. This little municipality of maybe 3500 in the late 80s dosent have a traffic light and 30 lost souls gave their lives for Finland's independence. What brave men they were. If you look into it- probably best soldiers ever. Sisu. Her Grand father drank himself to death. He was a Capt in both wars and after the war he would drink at times and run off into the woods and re-fight Ivan in his PTSD state. Her Grandmother and mother stated they would grind bark into "flour" and cut their flour w it to make more bread. Grand ma would make "poison mushrooms" one of the best dishes I have ever tasted. I guess she liked me since she never poisoned me. They never wasted food. They were always hungry during the war they said. We thought at times they/we would eat things pass the expiration date, but that was understandable. As for their opinion of their co-belligerents allies. Finns are like Elves in their element. I the Yank would stomp around and have to walk fast in the woods-to keep up. I would get stuck in the bogs as the Finns/family walked around all care free as if on a Sunday stroll in the middle of a swamp. I never said anything but I noticed that and they probably knew it too. They are at home w their elements. Thats how I bet the Germans felt. And on top of that I wont mention the mosquitoes. She spoke German and told me when ever she spoke to a German vets their eyes would light up when she told them she was a Fin. The "good allies who stood up to the russkies, unlike the others". She told me once a mutual friend's father was a nazi. His family fled German to So America after the war. I never like him. Finally how ironic I knew a Russkie girl from the Lake Ladoga region who actually ate a lot of the same foods/drinks and her grand parents moved there after the war. Her father was a carer soldier in the USSR/Russian Army. I asked her one day what happened to the Karelians and she said they all died or moved on so they came there. I smiled and didnt bring up the war, stalin and russification. I guess they have their own version of history.

[@humanbeing1675]

The grandfather of my wife served as a Gebirgsjäger in Finland during WWII. He told me a couple of stories from that time. He always spoke with respect of the finns and pointed out their hospitality and their friendly relations with the civilians.

[@keisari00]

God bless you all good people with #SISU

[@lenzor100]

Finland never recognized that there was a "Jewish problem" there were even Jewish finns fighting in the war.

[@rustr01]

All these arguments in defense of Finland are really ridiculous. And they break down about just one fact - the Finns participated in the siege of Leningrad, a blockade that claimed many lives of ordinary people.

[@jimwind7589]

@@rustr01 go collect your ruble Ivan. Slava Ukraine!

[@lehtokurppa7824]

That's a very sugarcoated version for the Soviets about this story. You didn't mention that after the Winter War, the Soviets didn't stop harassing Finland. They were shooting down Finnish civilian planes, altering the border, demanding industrial products, (especially nickel from Petsamo), promoting Finnish communists wanting to overthrow the government, etc. Also because Soviets took Salla in the Moscow peace treaty, Finns saw that as a spearhead position for the new attack. The period between the two wars for Finland even at the time was known as the "temporary peacetime". So the context that Finland feared a Soviet invasion to happen at any time makes it more clear why they took the German help, especially since no other alternative was available at the time. It shoudl also be mentioned that the German presence in Norway was seen as somewhat threatening too. As for the cease fire the Soviets offered, it was not out of the kindness of their heart. The major Soviet eastern-front offensive was finally halted in Finland at the battle of Tali-Ihantala (which is the biggest battle in Northern-European history btw.). That didn't naturally mean that the Soviets would stop, but it made clear that if the Soviets wanted Finland they would have to reinforce the troops in the Finnish border, and at the same time the race for Berlin had started, and they decided that it was not worth it in any means. Lastly for the Lapland war, the Finns and the Germans co-operated and agreed that no conflict would happen between them and the Germans could retreat in peace. After some time the Soviets learned of this and threatened Finland with war if they didn't drive the Germans out with force and quickly. In conclusion, there are two main theories about Finland's involvement in WW2, the obsolete version where Finland just found itself at war unwillingly, and the newer where it is accepted that Finland went into the offensive against the Soviet Union willingly, but it was directly caused by the international situation and especially Soviet action towards Finland.

[@СергейРублев-т7я]

USSR wanted Finland to have a friendly government. This was one of the goals of the winter war. The war in 1941 occurred due to the fact that the anti-Soviet Finnish government had revanchist goals. If it were friendly or neutral (as was concluded in the conditions of the Moscow treaty), then there would be no war.

Yeah, shooting down civilian planes really gets you a friendly government and people.

[@jheck2722]

I'd love to see a video on The Battle of Raate Road, there seems to be very little about it, on youtube. That said, I feel for the Finns, stuck between two evils, at threat of losing their independence in either direction. Churchill pressuring them was a bit if a disservice, especially considering how joining the allies went for Poland.

[@yulusleonard985]

They can stay neutral.

[@michealohaodha9351]

@@yulusleonard985 Yeah...look where that got them in November 1939 :)

[@yulusleonard985]

@@michealohaodha9351 You do realize that even Stalin cant believe it can go down that badly. It supposed to be simple land swap but ended up with soviet get all what they want but with a war Stalin never want.

[@michealohaodha9351]

@@yulusleonard985 Then tell me why he bothered to support and then recognise the Terijoki government? Why would Stalin have a puppet Finnish government under his thumb if all he wanted was a "simple land swap"? I mean after all that would suggest that he wanted to destabilise, indeed replace the democratically elected Finnish government with one of his choosing :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic

[@yulusleonard985]

@@michealohaodha9351 So he can get away with his invasion. You wont get away if you invade and take land just like Hitler did, but you can if you invade and install puppet government, just like Stalin and US did.

[@salao-b1w]

I’m looking fordward to yogur videos about findland and Sweden, keep up with the good job!!

[@s.31.l50]

Confusing telegraph lines with roads got me laughing 😂

[@konanLastchance]

Wow, thank you actually never knew about this part in ww2

[@steeltalon7382]

I love you tik thanks for informing me on history big love and respect

[@tabletopgeneralsde310]

Nice video sir, the books will be on my wishlist, cheers and stay safe.

[@elwismorgan1230]

German Intel was so seriously lacking that they couldn't tell the difference between telephone lines and roads on Soviet/Russian maps? They couldn't ask one Soviet? I'm honestly shocked by this.

[@vandeheyeric]

It doesn't help that the Soviets conducted one of the most systematic cases of mass disinformation against the outside world in history. So the maps the Germans prepared with were often woefully and intentionally inaccurate (as were the maps most Soviets had access to). So it's quite possible that on at least a few of the maps the Soviets marked telephone lines as roads and vice versa.

[@remittanceman4685]

One other reason for Finland’s reluctance to go further is logistics. Between Leningrad and Murmansk there is very little except trees forests and hills. Even today there are very few east west roads across the border. Both the Germans and the Finns struggled to supply the forces they had in Northern Russia as far forward as they were. I very much doubt they could have supplied them had they pushed further forwrd. Certainly not faster than the Soviets could use the railway to bring in a lot more troops to push the Axis troops back.

[@christopher9727]

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

[@Fireefly100]

you realy fucking thing an little country like finland wanted to invade the ussr lol they got invaded and now you got an chance to punch back

[@lowtierwaifu]

The Finns did pull off some good (and lucky) diplomacy, especially considering the fate of the other nations at war with the USSR. Unforunately, the war is often muddied with controversy and moral grayness, especially compared to the Winter War. Hopefully the comments remain somewhat civil.

[@ottovalkamo1]

True, but Stalin and Moscow knew how reluctant Finland was. For example: during the winter war when the soviets invaded, even then hardline communists of finland refused to side with the terijoki government, thinking it was a joke.

[@scottyfox6376]

(Sips English Breakfast Tea) Civility can often be in short supply in the Bearpit called You Tube comments..🎩✒️☕🐻🔥💥💢👊🤕🤛

[@johnsmith-zv1lo]

just read usa had threaten them in 41-42 to not attack murmansk, finns also denied to join support germans at taking leningrad and murmansk. as the 2 could had changed outcome of the battles. i can link a book of german northern theatre of operations 40 - 45 history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-23/CMH_Pub_104-23.pdf

[@etistone]

Their diplomacy and will to negociate saved countless lives.

[@string-bag]

Great video TIK.

[@tapanilofving4741]

Good video! But the fact is, that if Finland would've not gone together with Germany the Soviets eventually would have attacked and annexed Finland and the Finns would've faced a genocide. That's why Finns kept fighting because the option was to die in the camps in Siberia. It's a different mindset let's say when Germany captured Norway. Norwegians never faced the threat of being extinct but the Finns had that option in mind.

[@artiombeknazaryan7542]

bullshit. Finns were part of Russian Empire for a long time. No one sent them into tzarist exile. USSR had no such plans for finns for sure. The siple truth is that Finns wanted all of Karelia and Stalin predicted it when he started the Winter War to secure Leningrad. Finns got what they deserved a brand of nazis and a humiliating loss of territory.

[@yzmey42113]

Where did you hear this nonsense about genocide? Finnish schools? It's irresponsible of you to rewrite history.

[@tapanilofving4741]

@@yzmey42113 Almost all of the Finns who fled to Soviet Union after the Finnish civil war was murdered by Stalin. For example in Estonia a large portion of the population was replaced by other Russian people while they were occupied by the Soviet Union. With the fact that Estonia didn't even fight Soviet Union like Finland did, so Stalin would've revenged it for sure.

[@WandererRTF]

@@artiombeknazaryan7542 Not quite so simple in the end: www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article255e.htm - Stalin's purges in Karelia... Finns had roughly 17 times the change of being targeted compared to Russians. Even Karelians had twice the chance of being targeted compared to Russians. Which was not unknown to Finns (people did still flee across the border to Finland). Finland was not ready for any kind of war in 1939 - in fact it was anything but. Finland followed the Nordic Neutrality and tried to stay away from the war. Relations were poor to both Nazis and the Soviets. Those wanting 'greater Finland' had no power in the Finnish parliament (which was actually leftist majority parliament). There simply was no interest in Karelia at the time - and most likely had the Soviets (at the time when the Soviets were Nazi bedfellows) not launched their unprovoked war of an aggression against Finland then Finland would have been quite content to just avoiding it.

[@artiombeknazaryan7542]

@@WandererRTF the war of 39 could have been prevented if finns accepted Stalin's offer. They could have get more territory in exchange. Stalin was absolutely right predicting the vulnerability of Leningrad and future Finnish agression. By attacking in 1941 finns just proved uncle Joe saw their aggressive russophobic stance long before the WWII happened.

[@cameronalexander359]

Great explanation, tha ks so much for taking the effort to make this. And hats off to the Finnish it seems theyvreally did make the best of a really bad situation. Well gamed.

[@ichhabe330]

Just commenting that I disagree with your view on Finland being part of the Axis.

[@anaccountmusthaveaname9110]

What would have been different so that you would consider Finland a part of the axis?

[@adrianshephard378]

@@anaccountmusthaveaname9110 Finland actually sending divisions or volunteers to other theaters of war or even remotely sharing a similar ideology

[@anaccountmusthaveaname9110]

@@adrianshephard378 Ah. So soviet union wasn't a part of the allies? Since it didn't share any ideology with other allies and only participated against Japan after the war was already decided.

[@adrianshephard378]

@@anaccountmusthaveaname9110 Soviet union invaded poland and Nazi germany supported them with naval power in the winter war

[@anaccountmusthaveaname9110]

@@adrianshephard378 How is that relevant in 1942 onward?

[@RedGreekWolf]

I just wanna say that I greatly enjoy your videos, they are absolutely fantastic

[@viljopihlajaluoto9228]

Finns did proceed further to karelia because they wanted to take positions that were easier to defend. Once they had taken the positions they didn't go further. Not even when Hitler told them to go

[@pekka1900]

A Finn here. I do think you are right to call Finland as a member of the Axis powers, as we were basically allied with Germany until it wasn't beneficial anymore. But you could argue that the Finns were maybe a quasi-Axis member as Finland was the only parliamentarian democracy, and not a fascistic dictatorship like the other Axis members (not sure about Hungary at this point though, but in -44 definitely). Of course as the Zeitgeist determined, there were some fascistic ideas going around the public and a quite disturbing Germanophile movement, and a strengthened centuries long Russophobia. So I don't view us Finns as some innocent victims, but I also not as some full Axis fascists. We did surprisingly well given the circumstance. A great overview TIK!

[@Marcg-b4n]

😂 you fought alongside Germany during WW2, disgusting! You have been included in the Nuremberg trials! Traitors!

[@alexanderchenf1]

Every German company should have a Finish advisor. The Germans were woefully ignorant of the Russian culture.

[@JLieppinen]

@@bb2866 That is the funniest thing I have read on the internet for a while :D Google the country with the most olympic medals per capita :D

[@ian_b]

A new TIK video. Life is good!

[@laurenth7187]

Ye, tell my why Russia still not returned the Karelia to the Finns. Russia started the war against Finland in 1939. Finland refused to submit to their demand, as it was Finland's right. The continuation war is consequence of Russia's aggression in 1939.

[@sergeontheloose]

Russia never returns anything willingly unless given a "bloody nose". Seen the current aggression in Ukraine - they occupied Crimea and parts of Donbass. Are they going to leave those areas? Highly unlikely, unless Russia dissolves into 10-15 "lesser states" which might happen with the death\denounciation of their dictator Putin aka Huylo.

[@vandeheyeric]

To be fair, most Karelians are at best cousins of the Finns, but that doesn't mean they're interested in joining it. indeed, during the "Kinship Wars" of Finland in the years after independence Finns ran headfirst into how little support they had outside the borders in Ingria and Karelia, and a lot of those were quickly crushed by the Reds. So I think they legitimately want to remain a part of Russia now and largely at the time. Not that that justifies the Soviets being criminal, murderous douchecaneos. And bad liars.

[@alexalexin9491]

@@sergeontheloose ha ha, that pissed off ukrainian again. The Crimea is Russian and will never be Ukrainian.

[@alexalexin9491]

Why? Because Karelia is not Finland. And Karelians are no Finns. It's as clear as day.

[@alexalexin9491]

@@sergeontheloose Russia dissolving into 10-15 "lesser states" is the wet dream of ukrainian nazis, I've been hearing this for 20 or more years, ha-ha-ha. Ukraine's dissolving is a much more likely event, by the way, it's already happening.

[@ΚαιαφαςΠαναγιωτης]

Hi Tic channel. I really enjoy your videos. I suggest you to make a video about Dunkerk. How much impact this had to ww2? What do you think would be different if allied troops didnt make it to reach England?

[@samiparkkonen444]

Just to say; Lunde is not the essential source and he has some things wrong simply because he is looking at the Finland from the Wwedish point of view, meaning he has very preconceived ideas which he then tends to try to prove. That being said: Finland was an ally of Germany, No question about it. In official papers, notes and speeches Germany was " a brother in arms" so that kind of tells it all. There were Finnish nazis and fascists too who really suscribed the ideology and it's goals. The average Finnish soldier was not. Most of them fought what they believed to be revenge for the Winter war, taking back the lost territories or stop the eastern neighbor to attack again. Actually there were several cases of mutinies among the troops once the old borders were achieved, including some officers refusing to lead troop across the old border. One of the most famous mutinies took place at Petroskoi where hundreds of men refused to take part of the service. As for the Germans, most Finnish solders were not too impressed by them, excluding the Detatchment Kuhlmay, a Luftwaffe unit which was essential during the summer battles of 1944. Usually Germans were seen too much spit and polish type of parade ground troops who had not much use in the forests etc. As for how the Ryti pact came about and how Finns dodged it later on: there was a troika ruling Finland during the war. Mannerheim, president Ryti and foreign minister Tanner. When the summer crisis in 1944 was endangering Finland and Finns needed arms, ammo, troops etc, from Germany, The Germans demanded written assurances for the pact. President Ryti wrote a letter to Hitler and German leaders in which he personally gave his word that he would fight till the end with Germany. When the USSR let it be known that they can settle for a separate peace, Mannerheim, Ryti and Tanner launched their trap. Ryti simply resigned and Mannerheim let the Germans know that what ever Ryti had promised did no longer tie the hands of Finland as he is no longer in office and it had been his personal pact. So the troika fooled Germans.

[@svenerikjohansson8130]

If I remember it corrctly now my uncle, a Finish Army physician, was wounded in the Lapland war between Finland and Germany.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Karelia is inhabited not by Russians but by speakers of Finnic language, usually Finnish (what's a language and what's a dialect for 1000). So their objective was not merely to regain lost territories, but also at least those areas occupied by ethnic Finns. Which used to be Leningrad, before Peter I killed all the locals and built a city there then populating said city with Russians splitting Estonia from Finland (those are mutually intelligible languages because they are both Finnic).

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Mannerheim said it was only to retake the lost territories, not conquer Karelia... although actions speak louder than words

[@QuizmasterLaw]

​@@TheImperatorKnight They do.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Thailand was also an axis ally or co-belligerent and emerged from the war roughly unscathed.

[@tuoppi301]

@@TheImperatorKnight There are two alternative reasons presented for taking East Karelia, which I somewhat rememeber. First was, that conquered territory could be used when bargaining for peace and second was that it offered better natural defences than actual borders as Finns took up defences among Syväri (Svir) river between lakes Ladoga and Onega. Also, to be honest Mannerheim had some ambitions on taking Karelia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Scabbard_Declaration

[@eduardoocampo9901]

The territories where St. Petersburg was founded were not taken from the Finnish but from the Swedish Empire. Finland doesn't even exist up to that time. Today's territories of Finland were disputed before and even up the xiv century by the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Novgorod, the later being from among the heirs of the Rus.

[@PNurmi]

As a Finnish-American, I found this discussion very informative. One other notable result in the aftermath of the war was Finland was the first if not the only "co-beligerant" to fully pay off their war reparations to all of the Allies. Supposedly, what was paid to the US was placed in a special fund to support US-Finnish relations. The longterm results was "Finnalation" where the Soviet Union made sure the Finns stayed quasi-neutral during the Cold War where wharever they did would not displease the Soviet Union.

[@ottovalkamo1]

Make sure to mention Vilho Petter Nenonen's revolutionary artillery tactics during the Tali-Ihantala countervictory.

[@angels2online]

Awesome video!

[@burtpowell1344]

Given the timetable you present, then Finland’s leadership was the first to realize that Germany “lost the war “ when The Soviets did not collapse in the first ninety days ?

[@MasterFeidn]

He is very negative about germany in WW2 in general. No way the fins expected that. There were a lot of pressure by the US about delivery of ressources. They threatened to declare war on finland also if the fins would move further. If the fins would have put more effort closing down leningrad completely and breaking the Murmanks road then who knows how the war would have went in the decisive year 41/42. The final result is that the gamble of finland didn't pay out. The lost territories were given back to russia.

[@sampohonkala4195]

@@MasterFeidn I think the Finnish war aims are often misunderstood. The general atmosphere after the Winter War was not 'let's get our lost land back' but the fear that the Soviet Union would try again, conquer Finland and annex it as it had done in the Baltic states. If you look at the map, the Finns brought their front way futher than the old border, between the large Carelian lakes to give the shortest possible land front in the area. This was done, because Finland wanted to be ready in case Germany did not win. Early on the Finns (especially Paasonen as early as february first 1943) were sure that Germany cannot win the war. From that point on it was no longer a question of anything else but survival for the Finns. There was no 'gamble' at any point, beacuse it was understood right from the beginning that there was no way Finland could defend the new border of 1940, with all the fortifications on the Isthmus lost. It was also impossible to stay neutral - Finland had tried that before the Winter War and we all know the result. The USSR occupied practically every European country that it had a border with, so there is no reaon to believe Finland could have escaped that, except by military force, which it used to the fullest.

[@MrBassmann15]

"Nobody died in that War." Well, thank you TIK for clarifying that no one died in WW2.

[@vanukas8783]

Well God damn I dont know what to believe now

[@mikem9001]

That's not what he said. Try again.

[@lesliefranklin1870]

Note that Finland refused to hand over their Jewish population to Germany, unlike Axis powers and conquered territories.

[@TheOverlordTank]

For every time this guy says "A rock and a hard place", Simo gets a kill.

Sweden was allied with Finland but as a non-beligerant. Germany on the orher hand, was not allied with Finland but they were a co-beligerant. 🤪😄 Btw: Sweden won the second world war. Sweden got rich from selling high quality iron ore to Germany during the war. After the war, Europe was flooded with Marshal aid that was mostly spent on buying industrial goods from the only still intact industrial nation, Sweden. So Sweden got even richer. Then, Sweden was allso granted Marshal aid... 🙄

[@soldierorsomething]

Finland also agreed to receive marshall-aid but the Soviet union decleared that they would not like that, so finland declined the offer but in return the soviets lowered the amount of war war reparations we would have to give to them and they also supplied us with raw materials, that we could manufacture them in to items and ships and then use those to payback the soviets with them

[@juliancate7089]

God. The bullshit people post on the internet. First, Germany had another major source of iron ore - Spain. Secondly, Sweden allowed much of the purchase of the iron on credit, which that Germans failed to pay-off by the end of the war. Third, Sweden had a sharp downturn in GDP in the first years after WW2, and lastly, Sweden was NOT the only country with an intact industrial base. Switzerland, the U.K., Ireland, Portugal, and even most of France's industry was intact. Why do people like you insist on posting garbage that can be easily refuted?

[@adrianshephard378]

Sweden allowed the allies to move their troops through their territory

[@fewyearsbehind9333]

Yeah it's better to do it like my country Poland. 1/5 of population killed, coutry burned, all valuable commodities sacked. But we are not called members of axis and natzis right? Right? I hope we would have leaders like Finland

[@anaccountmusthaveaname9110]

I really doubt it would have helped.

[@artiombeknazaryan7542]

Lol you got German territories after the war. And finns lost even more land. You sure you would have wanted this exact result in the end? )))

[@fewyearsbehind9333]

@@artiombeknazaryan7542 Overall Poland lost 73,000 km^2 after WW2 and 16-17 % of population and was under Soviet rule for next half of century. No getting German territories does not change much.

[@suokkos]

I think any Polish leadership would have been facing impossible situation. Finland had political advantage where south, west having sea protecting from entry. Meanwhile north could be considered safe with reduced peacetime border patrols. On other hand Poland faced two front war against two superior opponents. On top of that terrain in Poland massively favors meganied warfare compared to Finland. You can see the difference even today if you look at satellite maps. Satellite maps don't even give full picture where worse roads and rail connection, a lot rivers, lakes and swamps make moving large number of troops quickly much harder.

[@artiombeknazaryan7542]

@@fewyearsbehind9333 what have you been expecting? USSR just sitting and watching Germans taking all Poland and getting closer to USSR border? You are not serious. You'd better ask Britain and France what have they done to prevent this, the guys who promised to protect Poland.

[@sisu413]

As an American with Finnish ancestry (grandparents from Finland) they always had to fight the Russians against subjugation. I really can't blame them for receiving help from any source who could help them keep their lands and identity. Great video (even if I'm only 1/4) into it) Thank you ❤️🇫🇮

[@beefy1212]

Stacie 413 that is how I have always seen it as well, the Finns were given a pretty bad deal in the winter war, land was lost their allies and the other European powers pretty much abandoned them, they lost a good chunk of land much of it their prime farmland Here comes the nazis’ who offered them everything they needed to take back their land, rebuild the army and handing out grain. At the time those nazi’s looked pretty unstoppable, Russia looked like it was on the ropes and Britain and France could be expected to offer zero trouble, what remained of France was a puppet state and Britain was at the time getting the snot kicked out of them as well. Of course they signed on to fight the soviets everyone else in the region did as well, I think it is a little unfair to simply lump them as an axis power the allies abandoned them, they had a score to settle and since they basically launched one big offensive push and sued for peace, I think it is pretty clear they were far more reluctant partners than say Hungry or Romania or even Latvia.

[@hhussy]

@@cosmicwakes6443 She just said she has Finnish ancestry. No need to go on this embarrassing racist tirade. What is your problem?

[@litfurher4206]

Us Finns were a member of the Axis, and I'm not going to deny that. Us Finns were responsible for prolonging the war and helping Germany. Am I ashamed for any of it? No, I am not. We were threatened with the eradication of our nation, and had been subjected to an unprovoked invasion including civilian bombings. We were also ripped from lands which had been inhabited by Finns for centuries. I am not ashamed that my forefathers allied with people who I disagree with politically to preserve an independent Finland for their children. In war it's kill or be killed, and you can't be picky about allies when the survival of your nation is on the line.

[@cosmicwakes6443]

@@hhussy No, Americans measure their whiteness with their European ancestry so as to measure their value as a person. And she defended the fascist Finnish state.

[@cosmicwakes6443]

@Audio Sugar Measuring whiteness is bad, it's simple, Jesus, only fucking racists measure their whiteness. It has to be said?

[@luboslier347]

The Germans did poorly becouse they were in fact Austrians. Mystery explained!

[@sergeontheloose]

Austrian 45th division was also badly mauled on June 22-29 during fighting for Brest Fortress. So from the very beginning of the Operation Barbarossa the Austrians paid dearly for Hitler's "adventures".

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

Lapland is no joke. You can lose your life even without the Red Army if you don’t know what you’re doing.

[@dongilleo9743]

The German troops in Lapland trying to fight their to Murmansk were at the end of a precarious and difficult supply line. The Russians had the Murmansk railroad nearby to keep them well supplied. The panzer unit sent to Lapland was equipped with captured French tanks. While the regular mountain divisions were of good quality, the SS Division "Nord"(aka future 6th SS Mountain Division) was poorly trained. It quickly fell apart and became ineffective; so much so that German commanders asked that it be removed. Himmler and Hitler insisted it stay.

[@gordy3714]

Tick when will we expect to get the following sentence when the Stalingrad series resumes. When a mortar goes through a map on the table which takes out the majority of the 24th Panzer Division Command, apart from 1 guy who bent over to pick up a pencil when it landed.

[@GunnyKeith]

Wow, didn't know that.

[@gordy3714]

It's in Jason Mark's book Death of the Leaping Horseman.

[@GunnyKeith]

@@gordy3714 thanks brother, appreciate that

[@soldierorsomething]

What, something like that really happened?!?, that sounds like a 1 in a million chance to be even possible

[@gordy3714]

Page 137 if anyone is interested, that's the reissued book Stackpole.

[@gequitz]

Good video. While Finland did want to take land populated by ethnic Finns in Karelia and elsewhere, St Petersburg has was never a revanchist goal. Also, while it only used a division or so, Finland also besieged the Soviet occupied port of Hanko until December. Additionally, some people allege Churchill made a deal with Mannerheim to hold back their offensive against the USSR, based on a letter Mannerheim wrote to Churchill (but Churchill's correspondences are still classified😠)

[@magnusschilling4657]

Hey TIK! Sadly your email adress isn't available anymore and I don't use twitter a lot so I'll just try my luck and hope that you'll see this comment. This video on Finland and the hints at future videos about Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia have really gotten my attention. Now, to cut a long story short - I'am a young german man (Auslandsdeutscher we would call it) with a burning passion for politics and history living in Norway. Since I speak fluent Norwegian and German I also understand a lot of written/ spoken Swedish and Danish. (English is obvious I hope) I would be really happy to provide any help you might need with finding or translating sources in german or norwegian, in addition to this one of my close relatives works at the norwegian national archive and has access to a lot of primary sources and documents there. I've been a huge fan for 3 years already so stay safe and keep up the great work!

[@CronoZoneDJ]

Yeah!!! Monday TIKs video!!!

[@binford5000]

I really doubt that the "route through Sweden" has much of a point anyway. I mean, even swedish ore left the country through Norway/Narvik, because it was (and still is iirc) easier than to load it onto ships at sweden

[@scottyfox6376]

I'm told Mannerheim couldn't speak Finnish but only Swede..kinda weird to know

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

Afaik Narvik is indeed where the ore goes through to this day, wich is why the British were considering invading Norway but Germany _actually_ invaded before they could put any plans into actions (iirc). Also, Swedish was the "language of the elites" in Finland up until some time after WW2 (dont remember the exact year/decade), wich was a tradition going back to the Swedish empire (Finland was essentially "eastern sweden" for some 400+ years iirc), newspapers and alot of official literature was in Swedish, and a significant minority of Finns speak Swedish as their first language/mother tounge even today (mostly on the west coast). All finish peoples were taught obligatory swedish in school up until just a decade or so ago, i think, they might still do it, i know it was in the news some years ago that finnish nationalists were campaining to get it removed from schools.

[@Bragosso]

@@scottyfox6376 Mannerheim's Finnish was worse than Churchill's French to give you a hint.

[@DirtyMardi]

Mr BigCookie a small correction, all Finns are taught Swedish at school for a minimum of 3 years to this day.

[@dogwhistle8836]

Britain did send a bombing raid early after they declared war to Turku and bomb the water outside the city as some weird show of force

[@dogwhistle8836]

@Rasmus Vohlakari most likely a few brit tourists looking for a drunk Finn is his best red suit

[@varovaro1967]

Why dont we send the Finns against the covid 19?

[@dusk6159]

Hell no, way to make it worse, they would lose against it and then watch and help the invaders of Norway, joining the mass attack, so getting themselves automatically killed next just like all the other pawns, if successful (of course they would lose that too though).

[@TheWorldEnd2]

Because the Covid19 is also fighting the Russians. The finns would just ally with C19 and attack Russia XD

[@dusk6159]

@@TheWorldEnd2 True, though there's still the later chance, at the end Covid and finns fought anyway before the definitive Covid's loss and retreat from Norway and the front.

[@ruihopracing8151]

@@dusk6159 Are you disrespecting my fatherland?

[@dusk6159]

@@ruihopracing8151 Only myths and bias, nothing crazy. Both finns and soviets, just like every people about wars (but especially wars of the kind of WW2 and the period around that time), have their fair share.

[@tommyhijmensen6257]

Finally ! The snow (or in this case TIK)speaks...once more ! Thank you for this TIK😢

[@Ralphieboy]

"But they had swastikas on their tanks and aircraft!!!"

[@Ralphieboy]

Quite aware of that, which is why I put it in quotation marks...but lots of people assume that was the case...

[@randomguy80]

The finnish swastikas were originally on finnish air forces planes. I know cause I am from Finland.

[@Ralphieboy]

My friend's dad was part Yaqui Indian and he had a death's head skull ring, a common motif in that part of the world, he had a lot of trouble when he wore it in Germany after the war, people thought it was taken from an SS officer...

[@nuutine]

@The Truth that's why swastikas are used in finnish military to this day

[@randomguy80]

@pinkki yksisarvinen Suomi gang

[@Tomitus1]

The only armed battle I know that happened between UK and Finland in WW2 was the British raid on Petsamo's port. Squadron of 9 Swordfish and 9 Albacore naval bombers torpedo'ed some wooden ships and a small steamer. Finnish anti-air shot at the aircrafts and the German fighters intercepted the squadron away. An Albacore and a Fulmar were shot down and 1 Fulmar was lost due the engine failure before the raid. The raid was part of a bigger operation at Kirkenes and Petsamo, which was a failure for the British: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_EF_(1941).

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

They also escorted Soviet bombers over Finland. To my understanding the Anglo-Finnish War ended in December 1941.

[@srelma]

I agree that the Finland history writes this part of our history in a favourable light. However, Finland didn't send any Finnish Jews to concentration camps so, it was not quite the same as Hungary or Italy. Furthermore, Finland was really caught between the rock and the hard place and if you look at what happened to the Baltic states in 1940 and then after the war, I think Finland made roughly the right choices.

[@ddoumeche]

Actually Italy, and most european dictatorships except Germany ofc, didn't sent any jews to concentration camps until they were invaded by Germany ... in 1944 if my memory serve me well

[@greyskull1944]

The tanks Finland had were panzer IV, stugs, kv-1 and t-34.

[@suomenkanukki1028]

Got to do what you got to do, when nobody helps you out when a bully is picking on you.

[@TheZINGularity]

Oho, Lappi palo

[@vassilizaitzev1]

Hey Tik, happy Monday. I’ll check out this video in a bit. Been doing some research about the Empress of Ireland. The anniversary of her sinking is coming up and I’d like to commemorate it in some way. Cheers from the across the pond.

[@arwing20]

I love TIK videos. Barely out an hour and we already have Neo nazis, pro finnish and pro soviets arguing in the comment section. One saying europe would have been better off if Germany won, another trying to jusitfy Finlands "not membership" of the Axis and other trying to paint the communist Soviets as little kittens that loved everyone they took land off or annexed. Also denying the Soviets wanted to conquer Finland in the Winter War. Hiliarious, keep up the good work TIK

[@joshwilliams9843]

Reality is complicated.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@joshwilliams9843 Yes, a lot of people don't seem to understand that. I'm English by birth but I think the Finnish actions in WWII made absolute sense from their point of view.

[@Raumance]

It's not difficult to justify Finland's position. Get an ally or face certain defeat against Russia.

[@joshwilliams9843]

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 I completely agree.

[@etistone]

Europe would have been better if France had won. 😭

[@INSANESUICIDE]

How the UK and other allies treated Finland is ridiculous, especially considering how little aid they actually gave, Finland pretty much had to take help where they could against the Soviets, lackluster aid drove them into the arms of the only ''ally'' they had available. The Finns were clearly not ''axis'', they simply had a mutual enemy, that much is very evident by a simple glance at what they did politically and militarily.

[@torgustafsson]

5 of my relatives where frontmen, and fought the soviets, who lost a LOT of soldiers.

[@jasonharry645]

Good one TIK often the story of Finland’s involvement is over simplified and missing important info, it seems a common thread that while superior in many ways the German efforts were let down by not allocating the required forces to do the job and not pushing on with focus to finish the job while moving reatedly onto the next task.

[@Frog89mad]

Finland was forced to make a deal with the devil, that's how i will always see it

[@ВячеславСкопюк]

Finland willingly made a deal with the devil

[@robertthecag1230]

So I guess you could say that the Allies invaded Finland in the winter war.

[@gurkslunga]

Well in a way but the Allies were the Sovietunion and Nazigermany that had divided the eastern Europe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939. Lets not forget that without that pact Germany could not have invaded Poland and the Sovietunion invaded the eastern part of Poland in midseptember 1939. So those two states were directly guilty of starting the second world war. The Sovietunion suffered a humiliating defeat when they tried to invade Poland in the 1920.s and they wanted revenge and of course to push their borders westward.

[@robertthecag1230]

@@gurkslunga I agree. But I can't blame Finland. They got caught in a no win situation. Stuck between two monsters. Just like Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic countries. No matter which side they pick, they lose. But what I was getting at was that timing had everything to do with what happened to Finland. England and France promised help Finland against the USSR. Then turn a blind eye when they need the USSR to help them. There were so many deals and counter deals made, no one was guilt free. England and France went to war to free Poland. And sold them to the USSR. The hole war was shady. We just wanted the lesser of two evils to win. Thank you for your reply.

[@allualex2606]

@@gurkslunga So basically Axis invaded Finland and then Finland invaded allies with axis, then finland fought axis.

[@amadeuz8161]

Finland would have taken back land that was once in history the land of the finnic people and her relatives. Like Russians have kinda conquered and enslaved every people belong to our family except 3. Hungary, Estonia and Finland is all what is left so even if Finland would have taken everything from the Baltics to Siberia touching the Mongolians again, it would just have been freeing it from the Russian occupation. Our language does even have similarities with the mongolian so we have developed next to them "Finnish is also suffix heavy, and also has vowel harmony. This is something common in both the Finno-Ugric and Mongolic language families. Mongolic and Finno-Ugric languages are also both heavily nominative-accusative languages, even more so than Indo-European languages are." Like its impossible to undo history but don't say that we would have taken more than what was already ours. The plans for greater finland was areas with still today hopefully existing tribes about to the ural mountains. Perm was about the end of it and funny thing is that the word perm. "The name Perm is of Uralic etymology (Komi-Permyak: Перем, Perem; Komi: Перым, Perym). Komi is a member of the Permic branch of the Uralic languages, which is also named for Perm. In Finnish and Vepsian perämaa means "far-away land"; similarly, in Hungarian perem means "edge" or "verge". The geologic period of the Permian takes its name from the toponym. " So from a Russian point of view it would have been taking their land, from Finlands view it would have been liberating land that once belonged to our sibling tribes and reading about what they think of being used as cannonfodder in the Ukraine war I do think they would have prefered being part of us instead. Then if take the other line of people belonging to our heritage that are the line of the Saami we could probably take all of today's Russia and call it liberation of our peoples land. Don't take me wrong, I do not want to occupy their land but I would like to see the areas free again from any opression so I would even fight any USA company trying to abuse em. I do believe that there are still people left in the areas knowing their true roots and not the enforced version the Kremlin teaches. I do believe that if they only would get the chance to be free they would want it. I would love to know the real version of the path of my people before I die instead of theories and I do think the truth is buried within the borders of the opressed people that would be punished for even thinking it. There has been documentaries about the tribes still alive there but some claim it has only been Russian propaganda to ensure us that they are taking care of our siblings within their borders(like you can never be 100% sure about anything when it comes to Russia). Just have some perspective before judging, like if the Indians in USA would start to take land back then would that be conquering or taking territory back that once belonged to their people?

[@amadeuz8161]

If you cant see my point. Then imagine you find a lovely spot to build a house. You build your house and live there for 5 years. Then one day I see it and take it from you by force, removing you from existence to make it mine. If your cousin then comes 1 month later and forces me out, is he stealing the house from me or just taking back what belongs more to him than to me. My point is not that even if Russia is a very young country wouldn't have the right to exist, but should it be allowed to exist at the cost of someone else. The same moral question exists in USA, young country and kinda exterminated the orginal owners. So do the other tribes that are left still have more claim to the land that the ones currently occupying it? Remember this is not the same as the English trying to occupy Scotland, like you were at least related to each other. We are not related to Russians or any European country, we are the only 3 left so would it really have been that wrong to go in to protect the ones that at least back then still existed? Like Stalin wasn't the first one to "clean" Russia, seem Putin has the same idea so would it really have been wrong if they had taken the areas under their protection looking at what Finland represents today, like we do rank top 10 in most humanitarian things and what do Russia rank as?

[@christopher9727]

..... Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Romans 6.23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

[@Therworldtube]

Wait a minute... a 89% like ratio?

[@theovonpapen2355]

Don't let some numbers take the attention of this video

[@TheImperatorKnight]

None of the comments are particularly negative so far. And it is a lot of dislikes in a short period (40 mins since release), meaning people aren't watching the video and are disliking. This suggests they either expected a different topic (e.g. Stalingrad), or are unhappy with the choice of topic (Finland), or are judging this based on my previous videos (e.g. people coming from my Hitler's Socialism video)

[@TheImperatorKnight]

And yes, as theo von papen has said, never judge a video by the like/dislike ratio

[@jameslebro6598]

I would say, don't judge the book by it's cover stuff

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Strange... 10-15 dislikes have just disappeared 🤔 Not seen that before

[@vilzupuupaa4680]

I don't understsnd ehy you think that we wanted to take over all of Karelia. Sure, we could have taken it, but it just was not the point of the war. The reason ehy we took over so much of Russian Karelia was to establish a buffer. The finnish high command knew that the germans would lose as early as 1941 so they made a buffer so the war will not be fought on finnish soil, thus avoiding material damage.

[@ВячеславСкопюк]

>The reason ehy we took over so much of Russian Karelia was to establish a buffer. oh, stop it, you >The finnish high command knew that the germans would lose as early as 1941 but they go to war nonetheless. Are you really believe in that? >so they made a buffer so the war will not be fought on finnish soil exactly, why? Did they thought that Finland was strong enough to stop Red Army in "buffer zone"?

[@vilzupuupaa4680]

@@ВячеславСкопюк I will not mention the first one since I wasn't sure about that but I had heard about it from somewhere but I can't remember. It's just pretty much common sense here. +it makes sense. Obviously you don't want to fight on your own land. The second one though, yes they did. The finnish high command was aware that Germany and the axis powers would lose the war. This assumption was made in late 1941 after the German attack on Moscow was repelled by the soviets. The finnish leadership sought peace but to no evail. Stop believing in that Putin propaganda. You were the ones to start it.

[@ВячеславСкопюк]

@@vilzupuupaa4680 >Obviously you don't want to fight on your own land. obviously you can get as much land in the future reich as you occupied before the end of war >This assumption was made in late 1941 and *then* Finland stopped advances in Karelia. So, no "buffers", just trying to hold on to what they've won >You were the ones to start it. Really? So, no German troops in Finland in 18th June, no minelaying of soviet coast in the morning of 22nd June, no refueling of german bombers?

[@vilzupuupaa4680]

@@ВячеславСкопюк I refer to the hostilities in general.

[@ВячеславСкопюк]

@@vilzupuupaa4680 if we look deep enough, we can remember what *heimosodat* was