Finland's Military: A big win for NATO?

[@Salmar80]

Some notes and thoughts from a Finn: - Finland's military ethos is still: You may conquer us, eventually, but can you afford the cost? Finland's military is built ONLY for defense, hence the reliance on a huge (per capita) reserve infantry and a large not-so-mobile artillery force. Any offensive capability such as the battle tank fleet and mobile infantry is only big enough for tactical counterattacks that are needed as part of the defense in a vast territory. Very intentionally Russia faces zero offensive threat from Finland's forces. Joining NATO is a move that signals: If we are invaded, hopefully we won't have to fight alone for long. Even in NATO, we can't rely on much actual outside support due to our relatively low strategic significance to the key NATO countries. - The conscription system is cost effective in many ways (you famously pay a drafted soldier the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes and a donut per day), but there's a hidden cost to most males spending 6-12 months in the military, and others in civilian service, plus the continuous refresher exercises that maintain the reserve. Service is time taken away from work and from adding to the GDP. Still, in Finland's particular circumstance of needing to squeeze everything possible out of a small population in a large area, it makes perfect sense. And service builds a mutual will to fight. Rich or poor, you will serve and be part of the nation's fate. - The defensive preparedness goes way beyond the men with guns: We have long maintained a spread out just-in-case stockpile of not only weapons, but other supplies from food to meds, even if it comes down to guerilla warfare after a potential defeat at the front. All top politicians, business leaders, relevant companies, and other players in key positions are included in the total defense plan, and take part in exercises. For example, trusted construction companies may get invited to drill building fortifications on a short time scale, there's redundancy in comms and key infra, there's bomb shelters everywhere, there's a plan to destroy all bridges and make road and rail network unusable by the enemy, etc. - Inherent in this is that the Finns have witnessed what happens to countries under Russia's rule, and unanimously don't wish that fate upon us. Thus the support for self-defense crosses all party lines, which combined with an extremely highly educated and low-corruption society makes us resistant to hybrid warfare like election interference. Even Finland's nearest equivalents to far right parties, the ones that in other parts of Europe have fallen under a degree of Russian influence, are reliant on the patriotic voters, and simply can't lean Russia's way. And what's today called the left wing has zero sympathies to the East, either. Russia of today doesn't fit the ideals of building a free social-democratic society in the least. - Unknown Soldier is not only a great book, but the 2017 movie is fantastic in it's realistic depiction of war and great production values. Easily on par with Band of Brothers in visuals and sound, and in many ways more realistic. You can tell even the directors and actors have served, and know how to run a trench and use cover properly, what fear under fire is, as well as how camaraderie actually displays in often silly ways. - Although Russia does pose by far the biggest threat to Finland, there was a period after the fall of the Soviet Union that we Finns looked at Russia with optimistic eyes. We thought we could become mutually beneficial neighbors with prosperous trade, prosperous tourism, and no threat of war between us. Hence the temporary drop in military spending, and an increase in mutual investment. Unfortunately, Russia chose otherwise, and we have no choice other than to prep for the worst. It's not so much Putin's Russia we fear, but what potentially comes after. No one can predict what exactly happens after his reign comes to an end. Not even the Russians.

[@samhartford8677]

Very well put, from a fellow Finn. However, I think you underplay our importance as a part of NATO. The Arctic will be the next battle ground. That's why the US is putting up infra in Finland. The Kola Peninsula and the road & railway leading there are a key strategic vulnerability of Russia. Finland joining the NATO was the worst thing that could happen to them. In case of a war, that spot would tie so much of Russian forces...

[@mikkorenvall428]

And more than shelters there is plan how to use civilian artifacts in military way during crises, like recruiting truck, buildings and cars from the people in a case of war. So not all resources is owned by military in the time of peace. Finland is basically a guerilla stronghold masquerading as civil society. Or has been build so till this day. Some most modern builder seem to have forgot is though...

[@Salmar80]

@@samhartford8677 Yeah, it's true I did underplay NATO's significance. Mere article 5 is huge as a deterrent. While I remain skeptical about NATO allies sending a lot of troops to Finland, unless the conflict scenario were somehow limited to only Finland, what NATO allies could absolutely do is fill in the gaps that a small country's military would have a hard time doing alone: Satellites, intel both on and off the battlefield,, mid- and long range missiles, special forces etc. Finland's military has been built NATO compatible for a long time, so the access and integration to all the hardware, software and command structure is big. Like with the air force, we have a fleet of respectable aircraft, but simply not enough to cover the entire country. Adding at least Norway's and Sweden's to it would be massive. The infra is in place or being built for it, including off-base options to scatter aircraft to avoid them being hit on the air fields, like air strips built on otherwise civilian highways. I'll admit I don't know much about naval warfare, but sure would help to have even the navies of fellow Baltic Sea nations to add to the mine-laying expertise of the Finns. We can surely mine the crap out of the Finnish Gulf and the archipelago, but there's not much we could do about Kaliningrad or the Arctic Sea on our own. While NATO already had some access to Kola peninsula, home of Russia's Arctic fleet, via Norway, Finland's borders do offer a way better pressure point.

[@harrilaamanen5910]

@@samhartford8677 Finland the defense budget is 3% of GDP, almost as much as the USA. USA 3.5% GDP, we don't have any polar bears. But maybe 1000 grizzly bears. Finlad loses 26706 more than 200,000 Soviet heroes fell in the winter war.

[@banaana1234]

@@harrilaamanen5910 And thats not counting the conscript man hours.

[@wakuzaki]

The one thing that always bothers me when people talk about Finnish history is that they always focus on the fact that we were a Russian satellite for a 100 years but always leave out that before that we were part of Sweden for 700 years. I think this will make Finland look like were culturally closely related to Russians when were actually much more culturally related to swedes.

[@sampohonkala4195]

​@@mikkopunkari1676Sorry to say but obviously you know nothing of Finnish history.

[@ilililil490]

@@mikkopunkari1676 What is this guy yapping about? Go back to history class.

[@Sonyboj]

@@mikkopunkari1676 Impressive to see propaganda like this in real time. How is St. Petersburg these days?

[@clopec]

@@mikkopunkari1676 Yes, many areas in modern-day Russia were Fenno-Ugric, just curious how these languages are all but erased. But sure, it was the Swedes who kept Finns as slaves and forced them to change their language.

[@Barbaari111]

@@mikkopunkari1676 the fuck?

[@reeseasmr2511]

imagine a military thats sole purpose is to protect your own country. What a novel concept

[@hartyewh1]

@@reeseasmr2511 In war the definition of winner and loser are often false. We call these wars defensive victories and no one in Finland considers them a loss. We achieved our goals and even the reperations we had to pay massively developed our industry and pushed us towards being the country we are now.

[@B1gLupu]

​@@hartyewh1 well, round 2 wad a loss for sure, but calling the winter war a loss is extremely misleading.

[@Ruija27]

America is the wealthiest country in the world today as a result of global trade. They would not be as wealthy or influential, if an isolationist policy withdrew US military protection of vital trade routes. Something to keep in mind, for anyone dreaming of turning inward.

[@Cronin_]

@@B1gLupu Misleading, but not completely untrue. We DID lose, on paper. In our hearts we didn't, as we kept our independence.

[@HenritheHorse]

​​@@Ruija27Also US funds the groups they fight against. US is wealthy, because it is corrupt and wages useless wars for supranational corporations.

[@user-pf7nl7xx4n]

26:32 As a Pole it annoys me the most: fact that eastern front countries will be the only ones to do the actually fighting in for whole NATO alliance. While French, Germans and Brits will boast how awsome it is to have them in NATO due to logistics, it will be us and Finns that will end up with army of handicapped people after the war. Now it is we that pay money to have actual war capabilities. After the war it will be our states that will have to deal with veteran society. Looking at the western Europe right now, I can only expect another de Gaulle's propaganda, how it was the French that liberated Paris.

[@jarnokovanen3619]

That is unfortunately exactly true. Because the threath comes from the east it is so hard to convince our western partners of that threath. Western europe has not been conquered or invaded by russia so to them it is something that is not possible or very unlikely. So Finland. the Baltics, Poland and and in some way Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria and Ukraine will bear the brunt of russian threath. All we can do is to prepare and be ready for russia. Like our former president Niinistö tries to educate our model of preparedness to others. They should listen and take some notes.

[@andrewcombe8907]

I think Finland joining NATO is a greater worry for Russia than any other nation joining NATO apart from Ukraine. Finland’s military is excellent with good equipment, leadership and personnel with focus on rapid mobilisation for defence against a Russian incursion; it has a circa 1,000km border with Russia which is the longest of any NATO frontier; every Finn is extremely patriotic and prepared to perform military service; the Finnish military, border guards, civil police and emergency services frequently jointly train for hostile incursions and terror attacks; and by Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Scandinavia is militarily unified for the first time since the Kalmar Union and the Baltic is now a NATO lake.

[@Vulcaani]

@@andrewcombe8907 most finns are patriots, we have our share of traitors, lickspittles and home-ruskies.

[@janko6608]

Thanks for the positive comment. I would even say that we are only country the Europe which has been constantly preparing for CCCP/Russian invasion since 1940s. For us the the end of Cold War meant that we got good equipment for low price while all others we lowering their defence capabilities.

[@markogronfors3826]

You Think ! wtf You are not a Finnish person how can even think about that? Read the ww2 history in the Leningrad front first

[@samhartford8677]

@@markogronfors3826 Yeah, sorry, it's you who is not a Finn or from a fellow NATO country.

[@ghansu]

Finland is worry for russia only in their propaganda. Why would anybody attack them? Finland and Sweden as part of NATO makes any russian stupidity here in north and Baltic region out question.

[@virkkunen]

Finns did not participate to the siege of Leningrad. Germans were furious about that Finns didn't close the encirclement from the west and left the gap for supplies. It was a direct order from Mannerheim.

[@HeilAmarth]

Also we didn't cut off the Murmansk railway which from large shipments of Allied material came in. I think that's why Stalin had a softer hand on Finland after the war, and not try force it into communist block or any bullshit. They sure tried with 1.3 million troops at one point! Not enough against 600 000 strong Finnish army.

[@CasusBelli-zm3ot]

@@HeilAmarth finland was crushed and pushed back in both wars, and both wars ended in separate peace and russia gained territories. 1/3 of all finish men got injuried or dead, finish economy still lacks power becouse of very weak devolpment in 50 60s becouse lack of strong males.

[@HeilAmarth]

@@CasusBelli-zm3ot Finland was never crushed, but signed a peace treaty in 1940 and ceasefire in 1944 and another peace treaty only in 1947. Finland had a population of 3,7 million during wartime, of which 96 000 men (soldiers) died, and 230 000 wounded. Around 330 000 isn't 1/3 of male population if you can count. Russians lost around 410 000 dead and who knows how many wounded, probably half a million. Finnish economy isn't weak, Finnish GDP per capita is on Sweden's and Germany's level and higher than in UK or France. And I didn't say we didn't lose areas to those a-hole Russians, yes we did. But their objective was to conquer Finland; a failure, our objective was to stay independent; a success. So the outcome of the war is a bit how you look at it.

[@MeditationMane]

@@CasusBelli-zm3ot You must be troll.

[@ToveriJuri]

@@CasusBelli-zm3ot Had Finland bee "crushed" We'd been part of the Soviet Union. Obviously, we lost both wars but kept our independence from a country that tried to annex us into their union by force. That is not what being crushed looks like. We made Russia's attempts too costly for them to succeed. So, we lost the war but won what was important to us. Can' say the same for other unfortunate neigbors of Russia who got forced into their soviet empire completely destroyed and are resentful for to this day. Living conditions and economy in many post-soviet "states" is still in horrendous shape and while Finland has its economic Issues, we are far better off than many other countries that got brutalized by the soviets.

[@Demomancer]

One point, during World War II the Finnish Army did not participate in the Siege of Leningrad. Mannerheim ouright refused to attack the city and threatened to resign if he was ordered to do so. Finnish forces occupied the old border area and stayed there. Also they didn't allow the German's to use Finnish territory to attack the city either. Mannerheim probably understood that the Russians would never forgive or forget an attack like that.

[@samhartford8677]

Plus apparently Mannerheim, having served in the Russian Tzar's army, had a picture of him in his house even after the war. And there's still a status of Alexander the Second in Helsinki. We just did not want the Russians in Finland. Obviously there were some radical right lunatics who had other plans, but they did not command the army.

[@LlL-ef5gy]

They did help starve them tho

[@Demomancer]

@@LlL-ef5gy That was incidental not intentional. We can speculate on the course of events had the Finnish army not been there. I don't think it would have changed the outcome. The German's would have changed their plans accordingly and the result would have been the same.

[@hullutsuhna]

@@LlL-ef5gy how do you think Finland could have secured the Karelian Isthmus flank WITHOUT advancing to the pre-1940 border? If Russians want to blame someone for Finnish forces coming so close to Leningrad, they should point their fingers at Peter the Great who BUILT the city there with the full knowledge that the border being so close to the city would be a problem.

[@hornantuutti5157]

Nope. Finns left lifeline to the city and russians know it wery well. That might be one of the reasons russian left us alone

[@henrihamalainen300]

The military history of Finland is a lot longer than its independence. For example many of the soldiers in Swedish armies were Finns and they earned fierce reputation when fighting central European countries. The reputation from WW2 is just a continuation from the old times.

[@harrilaamanen5910]

Swartika comes from a Swedish count whose family in the coat of arms is it. It donated a couple of planes to Finland in 1917 and also a couple of planes during the winter war.

[@McDuggets]

Niinhän se tuli mutta hauska fakta tästä äijästä on se että siitä tuli TODELLINEN Adolfin kannattaja 1930😂😂

[@EggwardEgghands]

10:20 Would be interesting to hear you expand a bit on what you meant. But from a Finnish reservist perspective: We think of the next war as good vs. evil, because Russia always has and always will fight wars of extermination against their enemies. War crimes and terror are part of their doctrine, as seen in Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Chechnya and every war they fought before. This is how they have fought wars for millennia. So it will be a war of survival and the right to exist or Finns once again. In this sense it's the same war as e.g. the Winter war. We have no rosy thoughts about the war being fought at the border or there being any safe areas in modern war. The Finnish military planned for the cold war to be fought with nuclear and chemical weapons in the mix, and this is still being trained. The Finnish military doctrine from 2015 focuses not on holding ground but allowing the frontline to move back and forth and cause as much casualties as possible against the enemy. The size of units all the way down to squad level have increased to accommodate for modern war being more deadly. Ukraine war experiences were being incorporated in training already in 2022. However, as they say, “amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics”: the ministry of defence had already doubled their artillery ammunition production in spring 2022 as an immediate response to the Russian invasion. Why, you ask? To fill the wartime storages. As in, war is coming now - get it while it lasts. By end of 2022, the defmin reported that Finnish wartime stocks were filled and new caches were being built to expand the wartime stocks further. Small arms ammunition production had then increased five-fold. This was in combination with additional orders for AT, AA, missiles, torpedoes, and every other type of munition needed for immediate wartime use. These stocks are filled. Finland is ready to go. They are now working on constructing new artillery ammunition production facilities, i.e. actively preparing for long term war in Europe. Footnote: You left out half the IFV force, 110 BMP-2MD, which are Soviet made but upgraded with western electronics, thermal imaging and thermal camo, etc.

[@3VVK]

Then why we let in massive amounts of immigrants and Islam if we are so eager to our right to exist? We practically lost already, without shooting a shot. I don't get how blind you people are to the population exchange. Why would you want to defend your own termination?

[@tbo2307]

What most americans call «reserve forces» in a conscript system is really the main army to be mobilized when needed. The «standing army» is just the education system to make the mobilization army.

[@luvirini]

On long range air defense: Finland has ordered an Israeli David’s Sling air defense system

[@Tiax776]

Medium range.

[@McDuggets]

@@Tiax776long range

[@lembitmoislane.]

The unknown solider has three films on it, the first having all of the actors actually fight in the war. Both the earliest and the most recent are considered national treasures, are played every year and are very good.

[@hextatik_sound]

Mollberg's Tuntematon sotilas has always been my favourite. The latest version is horrible IMO.

[@stiffyupperlip1851]

@@hextatik_sound 👍

[@stiffyupperlip1851]

´´All actors actually fight in the war´´The statement is exaggerated,some of them probably ´´served´´in entertain- ment groups,more likely microphone than rifle in their hands.Most of them are born 1926 or later.

[@jussihaila]

@@hextatik_sound I agree. Mollberg version is realistic and dark. Amazing actors like in the the roles of Koskela and Lammio. And there's no music at all which makes it feel real.

[@XoravaX]

@@jussihaila my grandfather was a conscript in the Continuation War, and grandmother a canteen lotta; neither of them said that the war would have been specifically dark or grim; in some moments yes, but the cameraderie and a sense of humour generally kept things from being too dark, and actually such spirit wasn't felt during peacetime. In their opinion, Edvin Laine's portrayal was more reminiscent of the war than Mollberg's; after all, all of the Laine's actors had been in the war themselves, so they knew what it was about.

[@finnishculturalchannel]

Reputation of course depends on what you've heard, but Finland's military history as a regional thing precedes the Viking era. There are fortifications known in Finland from the Stone Age onwards. The oldest sword earthed in Finland dates to 1700-1500 BC. There are around 100 known Bronze Age hillforts in Finland. The list of early Finnish wars and conflicts starts from the 4th century. Hundreds of Viking Era swords have been earthed in Finland. For hundreds of years Finland was the eastern part of Sweden, which meant that the Finns were E.g. part of Gustavus Adolphus' army and military campaigns. The ten peace treaties regarding Finland's eastern border were made from the year 1323 onwards. During the Crimean War, being part of Russian Empire brought the Anglo-French naval force against military and civilian facilities on the coast of Finland. The Suomenlinna Fortress was known as the Gibraltar of the North. Mannerheim himself was a Lieutenant-General in the Russian army when Finland gained its independence. The wars Finland has been involved during its independence include also The Finnish Civil War, The Kinship Wars and The Lapland War. The Kinship Wars includes E.g. The Estonian War of Independence. The Lapland War Finland fought against Germany. Then there are the peace keeping and NATO led operations. Throughout the time Finnish individuals have gained military know-how in various wars and conflicts around the world and often brought that knowledge to Finland. E.g. Aarne "The Terror of Morocco" Juutilainen had served in the French Foreign Legion before he became a national hero in the Battle of Kollaa during the Winter War. Finland was prepared for the war, but the Continuation War started after the Soviet Union had bombed Finnish cities. Also, Finland didn't take part in the Siege of Leningrad-not even after Germany wanted Finland to do that. For the most parts Finnish troops advanced only to the border of the 1920 Treaty of Tartu. This was significant regarding to the post-war Finnish-Soviet relationships, which the Finnish leadership foresee already during the war. During the Cold War Finland did a balancing act between the East and the West. While Finland was viewed as a neutral country, the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 obligated Finland to deter Western or Allied Powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finland. This partly resulted E.g. to Soviet Union selling Finland MIG-21s in 1963. On the other hand, E.g. during the 80s, Finland had a "mutual understanding" with the West and had the same rights and obligations as the CoCom countries.

[@XoravaX]

Though, the Civil War and the Kinship Wars were a single war from a foreign policy view, as the Olonets expedition was launched by Finland as a revenge for the Soviet Russia intervening in support of the Red Guards and even sending some Bolshevik troops to fight against the Finnish Government in the Finnish Civil War. The peace treaty for all of this was the 1920 Treaty of Tartu, effective from 31 December 1920 onwards. Some privateers continued supporting the East Karelian activists, but Finland and Soviet Russia struck a border treaty in 1922, which necessitated the prevention of illegal border crossing, especially of people with firearms or munitions, to stop these private incursions.

[@peigeot9906]

The swastika in use in Finnish airforce wasn't strictly Finnish symbology, it was taken from a Swedish noble's coat of arms as he gifted Finland the first planes that would make the Finnish airforce

[@formatique_arschloch]

Correct and long before nazis existed.

[@Hurduri]

Coincidentally the Swedish noble later became a leading figure in Sweden's own national socialist movement in the 1930s. His sister also married Hermann Göring in 1923.

[@Hurduri]

​​​@@formatique_arschlochlong before? The nazis used swastika from 1920 onwards and the plane was gifted in 1918.

[@peigeot9906]

@@Hurduri yeah, but the coat of arms was much older

[@vidrald01]

@@peigeot9906 and the origin of that swastika was from india , where the right handed swastika (sun) symbolises power and purity whilst the mirror night and misery, Nazis also tilted theirs... little things matter.

[@Pataassa]

Finland were under russia rule (not part of russia) but before that finland were under sweden rule like 600 years. So we have never been part of russia. And never will.

[@Redfizh]

I do not expect any more rocket propelled artillery. One missile cost 10 000 times more than grenade with equal effect. Finland is one large forest. Nature of pointing out targets is more like drawing a large circle on a map rather than pinpoint cordinates. All artillery is connected into net. You can order strike into any location and no matter where those artillery pieces are, they fire so that each of the 6, 12 or 24 grenades land on same are at the same time. Cost of one barrage is way less than fully loaded MLRS and can shoot again into another location immediately. Towed artillery can be deployed under 30minutes with full camo. From planes and drones it look's like tree trunk on a mossy hill. Add several hours and position is fortified with underground shelters, mines, anti-air and anti-tank systems. These are all always included. I've often heard that Finns also lack attack helicopters and aircraft carriers. We have to keep in mind where and how we fight. So my prediction is drones, surveillance equipment and updating current armory.

[@jimmiekarlsson4458]

Rocket artillery aint going away. It was only like a year ago when Finland said that they are upgrading there entire M270 rocket launch systems. No matter the costs, rocket aint going away. Look at Poland, they have ordered like 450+- 480+ launchers, thats more launchers than USA curently have in its own inventory. A rocket can do stuff a grenade cant do u know, its 2 entierly diffrent weapon systems. So both of those are staying in the millitary , U cant just look at costs, and think some "grenade system" is better use than a rocket system, just cause its cheaper to use, they both have there own uses.

[@Garbox80]

​@@jimmiekarlsson4458 Yeah, different uses. But if we think about the terrain where the war would be fought, those grenade systems will be most beneficial. Heavily forested area with a ton of water spots that will force the attacker to navigate via specific areas -> most likely a lot of troops on a quite small area. Not much heavy (or any) building infrastructure to provide cover. Those rocket/missile systems do have their place in destroying command posts etc., but what Russia has a lot is troops (and some tanks left still I guess), so ammo quantity will be essential (and the ability shoot/bomb with precision).

[@Pnaraasi94]

@@Garbox80 Counter-battery fire is also important. Guided rocket artillery can do it very well, and often more safely than tube artillery. It also brings more firepower in a compact form, thus making it more difficult for the enemy to find and eliminate. Most of our artillery is still towed, and thus vulnerable to Russian counter-battery fire. Rocket artillery helps even out the battlefield, and strike in depth, which tube artillery is mostly incapable of.

[@sampohonkala4195]

I think to fully understand where the Finnish army spirit started, you should read about Gustavus Adolphus and his Finnish cavalry. The king understood that these are simple men that cannot do fancy stuff with their horses like the caracole, but instead they had the guts to ride right through the enemy formation. At that time in the 1600's the Finns still killed bears without firearms: the hunter would approach the bear with a 'karhukeihäs', a bear spear, and attract the bear to attack. The attacking bear would jump against the spear, which the hunter tried to point at the heart, the other end of the spear held firmly on the ground. This method required good nerves and close contact with a way stronger opponent that could hit your head off with its paw, given a chance.

[@3VVK]

Myötähäpeä on kyllä joka kerta yhtä suuri, kun suomalaiset huonoitsetuntoiset käyttävät joka kerta tilaisuuden paasata lorujaan, kun joku ulkomaan kielinen puhuu jotakin Suomesta ja suomalaisista. Kaikilla kansoilla on tuollaisia kansantarinoita ja kaikki ne on suurelta osin liioiteltuja tai täyttä tarua. Nyky-Suomessa keihästetään lähinnä sosiaalisesti, kun erehdyt sanomaan vaikka "neekeri" tai et kannata valtavirran mukaisesti mielisairaiden transujen ja homojen oikeuksia olla degeneraatteja.

[@sampohonkala4195]

@3VVK Ehkä vielä suurempi myötähäpeä kun joku homofobinen haluaa purkaa rasistisia tuntojaan suomeksi vuodatuksella, joka ei liity videon sotilasaiheeseen millään tavalla.

[@avrellflagg310]

Kyllä tuo oma viestisi oli vielä nolompi.

[@voinyhelvetti]

For anyone interested about the specifics of the naming of Molotov cocktail, it was indeed named after the Foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. During the war there was heavy bombing on civilian targets among military ones by the Soviet air force but Molotov claimed on radio broadcasts that there were no bombings and that the Soviet Air Force was merely dropping food supplies to the starving Finns. Finns started to call these bombs "Molotov's breadbaskets" and devised a cocktail as a drink to go with the food.

[@ramiaubourg6945]

There was no such thing as "siege" of Leningrad. Finns left the humanitarian corridor open throughout the three years of presence. It was Stalin who misused that humanitarian corridor, bringing ammo in, instead of taking civilians out. Thus half of Lenigrzdf's population died of hunger.

[@aeye9772]

Pretty much was seige was. Finns werent able to close it. No need to white wash a nation guilty of genocide

[@edonveil9887]

​@aeye9772 Stalin's decisions lead to 27M Soviet victims. Victim card denied when you have started the war.

[@Drewe223]

Get excited any time you upload.

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thanks!

[@williamguidotti9111]

Was waiting for another video. Very helpful and educational. Can’t wait for a video about Germany. I think videos about countries outside Europe would also be very interesting but completely understand taking care of more familiar countries first. Great content. Keep up the good work!!

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thank you

[@kymensotaveteraanit]

Welcome to our channel for interviews of Finnish WW2 veterans. All the new videos have subtitles, many more to come. Enjoy!

[@mattiniskanen3330]

Thank you for your video! Few points from a Finn: - Finland has fougt four wars during her independce: Civil war (1918), Winter War, Continuation war and the Lapland war (1945). - The Mannerheim line as a ”bunker network” is a myth created by the Soviet (due a reason that they had severe problems to get through). There were few bunkers there and there but mostly the line was a network of open trenches. - During the Winter War, the war in the Karelian isthmus was WW1 like war of attrition, warfare in the north was mobile and based on encirclement of the enemy and deep engagements. - The share of the Finnish defense budget in GDP differs from NATO's calculation formula. In Finland, e.g. Pensions and the largest equipment purchases are financed from outside the defense budget. - Finland acquired a total of 96 K9 Thunder from South-Korea. - In addition with CV-90, Finland has around 100 BMP-2 MD (modernized version).

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thank you.

[@Iceman_zZz]

And Finland very specifically did not take part in the siege of Leningrad.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@Iceman_zZz They absolutely took part in the siege of Leningrad. They enforced the northern sector of the siege. Were they as bad as the Germans? No, but that isn't hard.

[@kimmoahola4528]

@@andresmartinezramos7513 absolutely not, because Finland did not move forward from the Svir river to the south western shores of Lake Ladoga. Something that the Germans pleaded for three years. Because Finland did not seal the siege, the Soviets were able to transfer provisions to Leningrad via the Ladoga ice road. I´d link you a map, but youtube removes the links.

[@XoravaX]

@@andresmartinezramos7513 Finland didn't advance closer to Leningrad than what was the pre-Winter-War border. The closest positions to Leningrad were dug a few hundred metres into the pre-WW2 Finnish territory in Kuokkala parish, on the Finnish side of the border river (Rajajoki/Sestra). Finnish forces did cross the pre-WW2 border in the North Ingrian Valkeasaari/Beloostrov and Lempaala/Lembolovo parishes, but those were further away from Leningrad than Kuokkala, and played no role in restricting the supply routes, as those areas had no major east-west roads, just roads to north towards Finland.

[@anttieskelinen1]

Finland still use bicycles. No reson to stop using them. Actually new bike model came like 5 years ago. We dont need "dog teams" in winter because we have skies and every kid have skiing in school and in army. Army have dogs but those are mostly to hunt Russians with military police.

[@anttieskelinen1]

Also there have been testing with electic bikes. If you have to move lets say batallion of infantry 100km fast, bicycles are good for that. If there is enemy ahead of the round, units can just ignore them and go around of them. Also dont need to think about the charge because the mission is now completed and forces are ahead of enemy retreat. Best example of using bicycles forces was in 1918 when there was indepence war in Finland. Main battles were over but Kymenlaakso area need to be clean. There were heavy fighting all direction west, north and east, but bisycle units came move 50km behind enemy lines and capture Inkeroinen railway junksion. 500 man take 3000 prisoners and atleast same number get stuck north of them. Other bicycle units also take porttowns Hamina and Kotka almost no casualties. 5000 prisoners there. Who have tried to flee to Russia.

[@Tedger]

I can confirm that. Though many of the bikes are from 40s 😅.

[@clopec]

And the border guard has even more dogs than the army. The border guard is part of the military command structure in case of a conflict.

[@butterflies655]

All the Nordic countries use bicycles.

[@puhistagram]

Thanks for your excellent video, Michael. I wish you strength for your own country's internal battles for the next couple of days. Take care.

[@michaelshurkin613]

I'm going to need a lot of strength between now and inauguration day.

[@sampohonkala4195]

At 4:16 No, Stalin could not go any further. The Red Army was beaten in the Tali - Ihantala battles and could not get any further. They simply ran out of time as they needed all their troops for the race for Berlin, so after losing in Ihantala and Ilomantsi they would have needed new troops to continue - which they did not have, as the only troops were marching towards Berlin. The only way the USSR could have conquered Finland was beating Germany first and then come back for Finland for a new, separate war. To avoid that Finland accepted the peace terms although at the moment it was not losing. Finland had destroyed the Red Army. My father-in-law was fighting at Ihantala and after those battles the discussion among men was if Finland should try to take Viborg back, as there were only weak Soviet troops defending it. That is when the peace came.

[@XoravaX]

And in addition to the standstill at the Karelian Isthmus after the battles in Tali and Ihantala, the offensive in Olonets and Ladoga Karelia was stopped in the battles of Ilomantsi, and repulsed well back over the 1940 border to the Soviet side (although Finland had to fall several dozen kilometres into the pre-WW2 borders). And north of Olonets, the Finnish forces kept their positions in the Rukajärvi parish until the armistice. As well as being stopped well before the 1940 border, there were also the strongest fortification line, the Salpa Line, left slightly inside the 1940 border. Had the Soviet Union wanted to press further into Finland past the VKT line, it would have been a bloody ordeal and still most likely to be stopped again at the Salpa Line. A decision to do so would most likely have cost Stalin the conquest of Berlin to the Americans, which was the primary reason why Stalin let it be.

[@sampohonkala4195]

@XoravaX Foreigners often have a hard time understanding why Stalin did not conquer Finland, when the answer is quite simple: tried and failed. Finland won on the battlefield when it mattered the most, and the Red Army ran out of time for regrouping as the troops were needed for the race for Berlin. Germany collapsing, Finland was still forced to accept peace terms as of course it became impossible for Finland to stand its ground alone. Finland had to exit the war when it was possible with relatively small damage, mostly by just accepting the 1940 border as permanent, losing a bit more in the far North but nothing more in Karelia.

[@mgransko]

Thank you for a very thought through commentary. Very insightful IMHO.

[@Garbox80]

I saw someone commenting (a year ago or something) about Fibland joining NATO something along the lines of "how big troops do you think allies would send and it would take time blah blah blah". The biggest support we would need is supplies. Ammo, weapons, healthcare stuff, food etc. And I think our NATO allies know that and this is one reason why Finland is so warmly welcomed.

[@informationstream6513]

some corrections... finns were ordered to stop by mannerheim in continuation war even though they could have demonstrably easily broken the railroad to murmansk because finnish leadership foresaw that this would be a key argument in the future to claim that they were not in an actual alliance with germany and that they were only interested in reclaiming lost lands, not destroying the soviet union... all of this they directly said even to their contacts like churchill even at the time... not questionable facts... murmansk line and leningrad could have easily been parts of finnish operations with their resources and success, but finnish leadership simply commanded everyone to stop as they were reaching them. So, a long story short... the finns were not a direct part of the siege of leningrad because of their own choice, even though militarily it would have made quite a lot of sense like the breaking of the murmansk line would have made a lot of sense... finns chose not to do what they could have relatively easily done and its one of the most fundamental parts of the continuation war... also, it needs emphasizing that finland was able to mobilize over 800000 people in continuation war from a smaller than modern population and has therefore demonstrated that the modern reserve numbers are not just numbers... according to evidence they are completely utilizable and are the real numbers of finnish army in war.

[@BorderGuardJaegerFinlandia]

We Finns take our defence forces very seriously. 86% of the population was prepared to defend Finland in case of war. That was before the Ukrainian war starter, and would be even higher today. Basically every man feel pride in joining the military, and even Kimi Räikkönen the former F1 champion had to join the military as most of all famous Finnish men have done. 🇫🇮💪🙏🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦💪🇫🇮🙏

[@3VVK]

Not really. Growing numbers of young able-bodied men are either resigning from reserve or thinking of it seriously. There is no pride defending your own population exchange and hatred of men. The last 10-15 years have been destructive to our unity and I don't blame any man who doesn't want to defend decaying society.

[@PrairieCossack]

I liked your video inside first minute and have no regrets doing that. Brilliant throughout

[@ValleyPooch]

I hit the like button and added this comment for the algorithm. Finland was not a part of the siege of Leningrad because Mannerheim understood that when the war was over, Russia would still be Finland's neighbour. Finland did not attack or cut off vital supplies to Leningrad. Additionally, Mannerheim loved St. Petersburg because he had lived there while serving for the Czar's army. Finland was not a formal ally of Germany because they had not signed into the Tripartite Act. Instead they were brothers-in-arm while fighting a common enemy, the Soviets. This distinction had consequences for Finland after the wars were over. Cheers

[@aeye9772]

Finland had no means to close seige however they sure used artillery on Leningrad.

[@ValleyPooch]

@@aeye9772 Finland did not use artillery on Leningrad. Finland made a conscience decision to not take part in the siege.

[@aeye9772]

@ValleyPooch where did you get that? In Finnish textbooks? Sure they did. As they genocided Russians in Karelia without any remorse. And some Finns served in SS too. Now they want to play victim card and forget about crimes they committed just as germans etc want to do.

[@XoravaX]

@@aeye9772 Finnish artillery didn't have the range to reach Leningrad; the longest range Finnish artillery had a maximum range of 17.5 km, and the closest Finnish positions to Leningrad were at the Finnish side of Rajajoki/Sestra river in pre-WW2 Finnish Kuokkala parish, and those were over 20 km from the furthestmost suburbs of Leningrad, and over 28 km from central Leningrad (not to mention that artillery wasn't kept at the frontline fortifications, but further back). Finland did shell the Kronstadt naval base a couple times (and Finnish positions were sometimes shelled from there, so those were generally exchanges of fire), but that's over 20 km to the sea from Leningrad.

[@aeye9772]

@XoravaX because they could not come closer, it doesn't mean that they didnt participated in seige. You want to white wash Finns, i understand but they committed genocide of Russians. Finns should accept it, and try to be better. Unfortunately, they make their past become their future time and time again.

[@user-ce6iy2nw5o]

Finland did not take part in the siege of leningrad

[@Nauda999]

Why it so popular to try to rewrite this historic fact? simple glance at the map from March 1940 when Finland gave up Karelia and the map near Leningrad 1942-1944 you see all there is to see.

[@Nauda999]

If Finland didn't block access to Leningrad from the North, then who did? and if access to the North was not blocked then why it is called a siege?

[@OsRaunio]

Soviets were allies with the Nazis, when they attacked Finland. Nazis eventually gave Finland weapons to defend against it's former ally and Finland allowed Germany to use Finnish territory. UK declared war on Germany, because they invaded Poland, but also declared war against Finland, because Finland was defending itself against another country that also invaded Poland.

[@jussiollila7714]

Correct. Reality is goofy.

[@hornantuutti5157]

Been in a couple of fist fights with russians after reminding that they started ww2 together with hitler. Not sure if they are shamed by it or is it really missing from russian books but damn they get mad when you mention it.

[@Jaggaraz218]

The UK alliance with Poland only included defending against an attack from Germany, this is the legal reason why UK and France did not declare war on the Soviet union

[@OsRaunio]

@@Jaggaraz218 Nothing prevented the UK for opposing Soviet invasion. They could have done it, if they actually cared about Poland. The war was about removing the Germany as a central European power, and half of Europe could be sacrificed to Soviet totalitarianism.

[@Nauda999]

True, and Finland participated in the siege of Leningrad cutting access from the North when Finish military invaded Karelia that they gave up in March 1940 Moscow treaty.

[@ainohautamaki2648]

Few equipment related points that play a big role into the "cost effectiveness" that was one of the big topics of the video: Finland's 41 MLRS used to have just the "old stuff" munitions on them, that is, cluster munitions, but it became clear that they left way too many undetonated live munitions into the terrain. Finland actually put a lot of research into improving them so they'd detonate more securely (my wife worked heavily on that subject for a time), especially after Iraq war proved them to be problematic for civilian population after the conflict itself ended. But there was never good answer, so the only cluster munitions Finland ever had were mines that were able to self detonate later. In 2015 the vehicles got updated with Universal Fire Control System, along with imports of GMLRS munitions from the U.S. that made them modern, longer range, and most importantly guided. (You could call them missiles but U.S. and Finland still call them "rockets"). Latest update is from 2022, with ER (extended range) GLMRS munitions modernizing them further. It's the same thing with most military equipment in Finland. While Finland and Sweden do have a new AR/DMR/SR family coming from Sako soon(tm) it seems, you can take the "service rifle", RK-62 as an example. It came out in 1962, but the latest step in that rifle's life is the "modification 3" variant of it that allows mounted optics, silencers and whatnot, making it a modern combatant's tool. Simply because it's much cheaper than getting something all new for a force (including projected volunteers and such) of 1.1 million strong. Since you can't really do anything without something that spits lead down range, I'm quite sure RK-62 won't be fully retired any time soon, no matter how fast they produce the new family of weapons. Not until the reservists who trained with it and mastered it get old. As for the "Finnish readiness" and volunteering spirit, I think my little family is a good example. While women can volunteer to do military service these days, neither me or my wife did, for various reasons (my health being one the big ones). That doesn't mean we can't do anything if there's an invasion. I'm confident in my skill with a Sako TRG M10, and my wife uses an assault rifle and a pistol in a sport that is aimed at reservists to maintain their skills, and also anyone else wanting to improve their weapon handling and learn "real life" combat scenarios, called SRA-shooting. We also know outdoors life style, orienteering (which we learn at school) and such well enough, traveling and living in Finnish nature for a time is no problem. If the conflict is prolonged and the need for everyone who can to pick up arms arises, we can and will do it. Obviously at first we'd go work in a factory to replace men and women that are now fighting, to produce food products or whatever - That's just as important. Fleeing the country however is absolutely out of the question, we'd rather die and take as many invaders with us as possible. Make sure the price is indeed high.

[@janihaavisto79]

The original Unknown Soldier movie (black and white movie) is playing in Finnish television channels every independence Day. Lately the new version has been pkayed too.

[@michaelshurkin613]

I need to see that.

[@CultOfMU]

@@michaelshurkin613 It is in Netflix as 5 part mini series, a bit longer than movie theater version. However it listed me only nordic subtitles, not english, so I'm not sure how worldwide the availability is.

[@jussiollila7714]

@@michaelshurkin613 Which one? I'm not sure if the original one has ever been subtitled, it it's available on YT, and so on. Anyway, I appreciate the video!

[@teme82]

Few things from a Finnish Navy reservist. Our coastal troops has Swedish RB-15 and soon Gabriel 5's on truck's. Plus we are looking to get the K9 for the coastal troops as mobile artillery.

[@Artho135]

I remember when we were joining NATO, there was so much false information. We needed to explain what conscription model and our mandatory military service is all the time, where does the size of our army comes from. Depending on the training, military service lasts 165, 255 or 347 days. Every male Finnish citizen aged 18-60 is liable for military service, and women can apply for military service on a voluntary basis.

[@tapioportimo2551]

A german high ranking officer was visiting Rovajärvi artillery range in Lapland and asked how many rounds of artillery the Finnish Army launches annually for practice. 30000 pieces was the answer. "How many do you fire in Germany?" The answer: "60"...

[@mattirae4191]

Finland was to some extent dependent on wheat supplies from Germany as there were no other options in 1943 early 1944

[@flashdancer42]

I think u missed to mention that we have number of NASAMS air defense systems (If I remember right the White House is defended by those in US), French Crotale SAMs and undisclosed amount of Stingers. And as someone mentioned the Israeli David's Sling system has been acquired, not in use yet I think.

[@michaelshurkin613]

I did overlook the NASAMS. Thanks for catching the.

[@blechtic]

Finland wasn't really a part of the siege of Leningrad. Finns basically stood down where the old border went (except for defensive considerations), which just happens to be fairly close. There were calls from the Germans to close the siege.

[@hartyewh1]

We did block them on one side so practically part of the siege.

[@sampohonkala4195]

​​@@hartyewh1Yes an no. If blocking something by standing at your own border is a siege, it is like saying Germany is having a siege of Denmark right now, blocking it from entering further into Germany. Of course there was war, but the actual siege was carried out by only German troops that were standing between Leningrad and the rest of the USSR.

[@hartyewh1]

@@sampohonkala4195 Have I been tricked by some propaganda or something. Even Wikipedia says that we blocked Leningrad from the north, but others claim we didn't prevent any movement of supplies etc. What's a solid source on this?

[@thantzweaung9080]

@@hartyewh1 Most likely explanation - Finland did try to take part in siege of Leningrad but did a crappy job that USSR supplies got through anyway. & Finland got decent deniability of not being Nazi allies, even though many politicians of Finland in early 1940's were.

[@CorporalCookie]

​@@hartyewh1Finland didnt prevent supplies from flowing in, which was a thing that pissed off Hitler, even though Finland did have the means to do it. IIRC, there was some strikes/harassing but nothing major to actually try to cut the route off. Some of it is hypothetical, as we don't know what went in his mind, but some believed that Mannerheim was fairly sure the Germans were going to lose in the end (and possible emotional ties to the city as well) and thought that if Finland were to take part in the siege actively, and especially if the city were to fall, any chance of negotiating anything but a total surrender later on would go straight out of the window.

[@HetkiPieni]

Hey just a note that the Finnish army did not partake in the siege of Leningrad, but sat it out some 20km away from the city. This was a strategic decision Mannerhein Finland also was not a formal/proper allie of Nazi Germany, there quite literarely is no pact that existed between the countries until 1944, when a conditional alliance was formed for a few weeks. For this reason Finlane retained full control of its economy and military planning

[@Petri-e7r]

Thank you for the video! Greatly told. You know history well. Finland won it's wars, because Finland stayed independent, it was only goal and ever will be. Finland had nothing else common with Nazi Germany than shared enemy (Soviet Union now Russia). The Winter War was started by Soviet Union. The Continuation War was also started by Soviet Union (which history books often forgets). No one else gave us weaponry than Germany, but we were not allies. Finland will have four new Corvettes. K9 Thunders will increase to 96 units. Finland has strong Land Forces, which will have more fire power soon. Finland is known to have some more than it will publish.

[@hornantuutti5157]

Yup like artillery doubled when someone figured out half was hidden in navy stocks lol. Antipersonnel mines were "sent to be destroyed" damn i was there carrying them in bunkers all around islands. There is always more toys than officially reported.

[@saunasankari5917]

A really good video, spot on!

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thanks.

[@ramiaubourg6945]

One thing you have to keep in mind with Finland holding on to some soviet MT-LB's and BMP-2's (all modified and upgraded to Finnish standards), is that these models are all amphibious, thus allowing easier river and small lake crossing, than more heavily armoured current western armour.

[@zacksagin6879]

The defense budget does not include conscription, or the mandatory bomb shelters for large buildings. The reality of consumption is much higher than the "military spending" compared to gdp.

[@weleho]

2:10 The other two wars were the Civil war 1917-18, and the Lapland war of 1944-45 (vs Germany).

[@XoravaX]

Civil War begun on 27 January 1918 (clashes started on 17 January and Russian military loyal to the Soviet/Bolshevik government started cooperating with the Finnish Red Guards on 19 January, but larger countrywide action begun on 26-27 January, and the revolution was declared on 11 PM on 26 January) and the internal part ended on 15 May 1918, but the Finnish Government vs Soviet Russia part continued until the Treaty of Tartu, which entered force on 31 December 1920.

[@MarkkuKoljonenwTinja]

Thanks! A very good summary about Finnish army benefits for NATO.

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thank you.

[@Le_Saboteur]

Very informative video! Thank you!

[@ilari90]

Good video. For a long time in army training situations, enemy always came from the west. It was to bow down a bit to Soviet Union, but all of us knew that there's no one coming from west. Swedes and Norwegians? Never. (and even if they tried, oh boy...) Love to Sweden and Norway, Northern countries are strong together!

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thank you for watching.

[@osemarvin2847]

One interesting fact about winter war (and british people): When the Second World War broke out in 1939, Christopher Lee had enrolled in a military academy and volunteered to fight for the Finnish Army against the Soviet Union during the Winter War. It means, that "Saruman the white" fought for Finland against the forces of Mordor (also known as Russia). Check the wikipedia for more info.

[@hornantuutti5157]

We finns actually also fought germany in ww2.. Lappland war.

[@mikaelantonkurki]

You missed the about 100 BMP-2MD that Finland still actively use.

[@charlesbruggmann7909]

You also omit what might be the most important result of 🇫🇮 and 🇸🇪 NATO membership: acces to airfields to deny the Baltic to the Russian Navy and support the Baltics if Russia invades.

[@HeilAmarth]

"We shall never surrender".

[@3VVK]

Huvittavaa kun maahan on kuitenkin tullut satatuhansin päin mutiaisia, niin menee vähän pohja tuollaiselta psyykkaukselta.

[@entropiceffect]

The Unknown Soldier is one of my favorite war movies - and is available for purchase or to rent on KZbin!

[@jukkasavolainen5620]

If you want a more authentic ww2 atmospheric war movie, watch the 1956 film version of the unknown soldier, that is my favorite war movie... Most of the Actors in that film had really been in that war...

[@MikeWal2]

As indicated by the first reply, there is more than one Unknown Soldier (Tuntematon Sotilas) movie. There are *at least* 3 and there is also a (longer) TV Series. At least one of the versions is on Finnish TV once a year (probably Dec 6th - Finnish Independence Day. I (living in Finland since 1989) would be happy if they could think of something else to show as there are several good - more normal - Continuation War films they could show instead. It would make a pleasant change.

[@XoravaX]

@@MikeWal2 the problem with most of the Continuation War films is that they're either unentertaining as being too much into historical details and sacrifice the story arc for semi-documentary approach, or then have too much blatant errors which start to get annoying. Väinö Linna's story was good and the filmatisations of it by Edvin Laine (1955) and Aku Louhimies (2017, both mini-series and cinema length) are entertaining yet accurate enough. Louhimies put good effort into the refilmatisation, and was instructed by many researchers for realism, so it avoids most potholes the more entertaining films fall into. That being said, I would like to see some Winter War film with the same approach as Louhimies' Unknown Soldier. There'd just have to be a suitable manuscript/novel for its base.

[@Timonen76]

Many ppl here have told me that I will get banned for my emblem... Most of em even finns! Well, almost a decade has past; no ban.

[@michaelshurkin613]

Good. I'm pleased to be able to do my part by bringing it up and explaining.

[@BobAbc0815]

During WW II the Aliance with Finnland allowed Germany to block Russias Access to the Baltic with a Minefield (known as "Wartburgsperre"). So Putin pushing them into NATO gambled away a very necessary (for Russia) Neutrality, that Chruschtschow had considered important enough to hand the Port of Hanko back.

[@hardtailwarrior178]

Really good video! I watch similar ones quite a lot and I was especially taken by your analysis of the how the previous war's against Soviets should be taken in terms of win or loss and the take on the alliance with Germany. The alliance was a must, Finland was in a situation that we needed to find someone that could support us, someone with common enemy. Unfortunately only Germany raised their hand in that occasion. But good that someone did. Also, liked the narrative about "fit to purpose". Subbed.

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thank you!

[@kimmoj2570]

07:30 Finland is still today best customer of Israeli military indunstry. In 50s and 60s Finland helped Israelis. Rafael is today what it is, because they are our "royal supplier".

[@JustTweetAway]

We have lot More New stuff but we dont tell what and where. 🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮

[@mikaellilliestrom]

Thank you for this, but i think you left out a very important thing and that is the populations willingness to defend the country which is 82% !

[@mikkopunkari1676]

Our people is willing to defend the country but not to fight for USA-NATO or any other foreign country. Probably the army could find a hundred mercenaries to fight abroad if art. 5 is applied.

[@DropB]

The Unknown Soldier is one the best WW2 books. The title means that, WW2 soldiers were glorified after the war and this book searched to display them in a light, that those guys were normal persons too.

[@hannumononen6345]

Unfortunately, the English translation (at least the one that was available in the 1970's) is lousy, and it even includes altered parts of the original plot of the novel. The soldier characters have become classics among Finnish readers, and many of its phrases have become famous quotes, but I doubt whether their specific and localized subcultural contexts will be understood by foreign readers. The book is fiction, but unfortunately some people take it even as history writing.

[@Tedger]

Finns were never very active part of siege of leningrad.

[@michaelshurkin613]

They helped seal off the zone, though.

[@hannumononen6345]

@@michaelshurkin613 Of course, there was the front line across the Karelian Isthmus (between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga). Front lines were naturally nowhere in WW2 meant to be crossed, thus sealing off all traffic, but seldom called a "siege" - and looking at the map: where on earth would the Soviets have wanted to travel along the Karelian Isthmus, while it was all re-taken and controlled by Finns, as well as the whole northern side of Ladoga? But there were specific orders from the Supreme HQ for the Finnish troops to halt their advance where the Soviets had built their permanent line of fortifications to the north-west from Leningrad. The Finnish Air Force was restricted not to extend its operations farther than 10 km ahead of the frontline, and never bombed the city. At the time, the Finnish artillery pieces had no more than 17.5 kilometers as their maximum range, which could not nearly reach the built area of Leningrad at all. Finns were well aware of the wintertime ice road across Lake Ladoga that kept up logistics to Leningrad. Finnish combat engineers had the skills of drilling ice and planting explosives, to be simultaneously exploded to form huge holes in the middle - in the Winter War, plenty of Soviet tanks were sunk in lakes using this method. Any convoys of trucks to and from Leningrad could also have been sent to the bottom of Ladoga the same way, but there were standing orders to refrain from it. Soviets sent some 120,000 additional soldiers to reinforce the military defense of the starving city during 1942, instead of a corresponding tonnage of food. But Finns did not wish to touch Leningrad even with a long stick, contrary to the repeated requests of Germans. There was severe shortage of food also in Finland in the winter of 1941-42, so the collapse of Leningrad with roughly the same population as all of Finland would have caused a huge humanitarian catastrophe - Finland had simply no means of feeding extra millions. The Finnish Supreme Commander, Marshal Mannerheim, politely but firmly declined all German repeated requests of joining their attack against the city, leaving it all to the Germans to deal with it, as destroying Leningrad was not a goal of war for Finland. The Soviets also noticed this, and could then concentrate their troops against the Germans on the southern side of the city.

[@kimmoj2570]

11:05 Finnish Army numbers do not include retirees or border guard, or cheap consption. In real numbers Finland never plummeted under 1.5-1.7%.

[@-R-o-k]

If war broke out FDF would aquire lots of vehicles from civilians. Trucks, ATVs, off road vehicles, tractors etc. With so big reserve army there would be no point of having huge stock of army vehicles during peace time. Reserve army - reserve transportation.

[@pekkoh75]

Finland is now modernizing the air force and the navy. The next up is modernization of army in a big way (a lot was done in the early to mid 2000s and continuing in 2010s). That said Finland is also modernizing its M270s MLRS so that they can fire the latest rockets (we bought 2400 rockets for €500 million recently). Finland is also buying more self-propelled artillery (up to 96 total K9 "Moukari" or "Sledgehammer" probably to be ordered). We also bought the Israeli "David Sling" anti-missile systems.

[@BaloneySandwichWithKetchup]

I know Finland during WW2 is discussed much more in War Colleges than most would realize, but it's good to see this conversation finally get out to the public in recent years. A lot of misinformation about our cause in WW2 and some downright lies have been the status quo in non-Academic circles. As a Finn i appreciate the spotlight of truth. One thing i'll always remember, Mannerheim knowing Adolf absolutely detested cigar smoke from the lung damage he sustained in WW1, when first meeting, lit up a big stogie and proceeded to blow a fat cloud in his face. Adolf grimaced, then put his tail between his legs and welcomed him. There was a general tone after that of Gustav basically wearing the pants in the negotiations.

[@ramiaubourg6945]

Finland also has quite a few of K-9's, and M270's

[@PalleRasmussen]

How could you, as a military analyst, not know anything about Finland's military history? It is awesome! Hakkaa Päälle! Finland is just one of those countries you do not want to invade. It is where Muscowites freeze to death. And Finland is an independent country still, because they know what it takes to be a free country; a strong military. I wish the rest of us Scandies- or Europe, would imitate their mobilisation system. And no, I did not watch the video, I was just shocked how you could not know. I am sorry, there are surely many basic things I do not know.

[@3VVK]

Matut valtasi kyllä jo tämän maan ihan ilman vastarintaa, puolustusvoimat jopa AUTTOI näiden vierastaistelijoiden laukkujen kannossa. Ja lisää tulee tuhatpäin vuosi vuodelta. Että voit lopettaa sen itsetyytyväisyydessä kieriskelyn ja herätä todellisuuteen. Me hävittiin jo!

[@henrimichelpierreplana4332]

Thanks for this very good video. Did not know about the Molotov cocktail origin.. Also very interesting about the bike units. May it will difficult for a soldier to carry modern anti tank weapon on it.

[@mukkaar]

These bikes are used for marches basically, much faster and more comfortable. Obviously you would transport any heavy stuff with trucks. Bikes are not meant for front lines, but if you need to move troops behind your own lines by marching, it's very cheap and efficient way to do so.

[@kimmoj2570]

Soviet Union had 50 times population of Finland in WW2 years. Finnish Army had field synagogue in front, and our Jewish troops nearly spat on Germans trying to offer Iron Crosses to them for bravery (without knowing these were jewish soldiers). Finland had/have small, but significant jewish population, mainly urban and in Helsinki. They had large contribution on our military intelligence as many of them were fluent on Russian, Finnish, and German languages. Finland is defence polar bear, but very few know its in large part military intelligence.

[@JohnTavastian]

You don't want to see the Finns in a fight. They will redefine what you though the word "brutal" was. The Finns love nothing more than their independence. I believe that Finland is like a bear, you don't want to corner them.

[@anza77]

We also fought War of Lapland against Nazis 44-45.. As part of the peace Treaty with USSR.. Polar bears in Finland.. Comoon.

[@dzejrid]

Oh, get used to it. Americans think there are polar bears in Poland. And we're much further south than you guys.

[@tapio7133]

Fought like lions, or should I say like polar bears... He did not say polar bears are our native animal.

[@andrewcombe8907]

Your comments on bicycles is interesting. The British Commandos in WW2 were issued with bicycles for DDay and promptly discarded them. The Japanese used bicycles when invading Malaya. The Swiss had bicycle troops but disbanded them in 2003.

[@EggwardEgghands]

Your first two examples show exactly what they should not be used for. Offensive operations. The Swiss used them correctly, as did others like the Finns and Swedes. As a faster and more comfortable alternative to marching - far from the fight.

[@mukkaar]

Bikes are for fast marches on roads to move troops. Extremely effective for that purpose. And especially in Finland, our Russian border is mostly very deep forest, but it has been prepared for defense so there's roads inside those woods. Ultimately, if you have roads, bikes are very useful.

[@andrewcombe8907]

@@EggwardEgghandsthe Japanese used the bicycle offensively to quickly advance and defeat the British.

[@hullutsuhna]

@@EggwardEgghands the Jäger Brigade of the Finnish Army used bicycles to keep up with the tanks and assault guns of the Armoured Brigade during offensive operations, the movie Tali-Ihantala 1944 shows a good example of this.

[@taistelusammakko5088]

There are no "bicycle troops" or "ski troops" in FDF. These are means of transport

[@eerolz8758]

The army does still run a lot of soviet stuff, also BMP-1 and BMP-2 IFVs. They did recently get the K9 self propelled howitzers, but it is very widely acknowledged statement that now as we've just done BIG acquisitions for air force and the navy, army is the next in que. I'm expecting big new aquisitions to the armoured vehicle fleet, maybe also some lifetime upgrades to MTBs. edit: 23:28 We do still have the bikes, and some companies do use them for marches during the training of conscripts. Basically, using them to march to the training grounds and back. (Instead of marching 5-20km on foot or using buses etc.) Pretty sure a lot of them would get deployed even still if we went to a war, just, not as a front liner vehicle.

[@merjakotisaari9046]

There is also the film "SISU", which tells about the time after the war, when the Germans are still in the country.

[@noahway13]

Finland: Well, if you are Russian to start something, just know that we Finnish it. (Yes, yes--- wince, cringe, groan)

[@ollivainikainen9388]

That was decades ago, it doesn't reflect to Finns any more. At the moment, we don't see any reason to have anything to do with the Russians.

[@akiyrjana6558]

Good video. As a Finn i found some minor factual discrepancies witch is only natural being educated about the history inside my native country, not always the most objective point of view. But Finns definetly did not participate in the siege of Leningrad. (I love the fact that you brought out the book Unknown Soldiers, which is propably on par with Remarque's All Quiet on the Western front as war books go. I wonder how the translation handled the distinct regional Finnish dialects with their subtle differences in mentality and relations between the characters, which is a big thing for a native reader. Have to check, maybe.)

[@andrewsarantakes639]

Bicycle moble infantry is great.

[@jlaa3500]

Tactical assault bikes

[@riikkapitkanen3666]

Only some 100+ years of russian regime ('The Grand Duchy of Finland"). Unfortunately, the constant warfare weakened the Kingdom of Sweden, they lost yet again another war in 1808 and 1/3 of the Kingdom since 800+ years (Finland) got lost to russians. Yet still, Finland has only two official languages, Finnish and Swedish (BTW, we do speak English too, inspite of the horrible attack of British Navy to Aland Islands in 1850's caused by some Russian aggression against....)😎😂

[@czlifv8865]

Keep up the great work of showing the less known NATO armies (Italy, Finland). Now that you mentioned it in your video do you have a plan for doing Turkey?

[@ThisTrainIsLost]

Actually if you translate the title of that Finnish novel directly into English you get "The Unknown Soldier."

[@hanstu1969]

Number what you realy should look is that over 80% of Finns are ready to fight if their country is attacked

[@mikkopunkari1676]

But huge amount of Finns have left the reserve and refused to fight for USA-NATO in a possible war. I know a hundert of them.

[@edonveil9887]

​@mikkopunkari1676 First the article 5 is not that straightforward. Secondly I would guess that it was a message for the minister who tried to prevent leaving the reserve. Like someone saying to Finns that they could not join NATO. I wonder if anyone has tried that. Your take on nato if the US leaves it?

[@hanstu1969]

@@mikkopunkari1676 you head is so deep in Putins ass so stfu…millainen sää siellä Pietarissa on🤣

[@tonihonkanen1180]

Not bad summary, 70%, correct better than usually vloggers tell about FDF. Many rankings rank our army pretty poor. And thats how we like it. for example: that an older russian made bmp sounds bad on paper, but when you modernize it with night gear, anti drone, anti tank missiles etc. it becomes a whole new beast. And also just one other thing: finnish landscape, extremly difficult to attack.

[@Valokaari]

Great video and analysis! I think one thing that could be mentioned is the concept of Total Defence. That means, in addition to the Defence Forces, the nation is brought into the defence planning. For example regarding companies designated "strategically important" for the defence of the country. Key people from those companies are regularly invited by the FDF to wargame how their companies would act in a time of crisis. I happen to work in one and the higher bosses attend those kinds of events regularly. Also I have a couple of colleagues that are designated as "important for the war effort" and cannot be called into service. Some comments: 3:40 I would say that Finland got as far as the old border between Finland and the Soviet Union 😉 You can see the old border on the map at 5:30 and that is pretty much as far as the Finnish Army advanced in the Isthmus in the continuation war. The old border was very, very close to Leningrad. The frontline was pretty much a straight line from about the southern starting point of the old border to the northern end point. 4:20 Yes, Stalin saw Berlin as a more better price than to try to take Finland. Because when peace came, Finland had managed to stop the Soviet summer offensive, started to even push back in some parts of the front and rest of the forces were beginning to regroup into restarting the offensive. So Stalin would have needed to commit much more troops and that would have meant he would´ve lost Berlin. 5:48 "The Finnish couldn´t afford the Maginot Line" but after the Winter War you get the "hold my beer" moment. Check out the Salpaline that was built during the Interim peace. The biggest construction effort in the history of Finland. 12::57, the 280 000 war-time strength and 870 000 reserves are the numbers that are given officially by the FDF. I would post a link but KZbin does not like links. 14:04 A good source for how much Finland has equipment is the Vienna 2011 Document of Annual Exchange of Military Information. 16:34 When Russia started it´s full invasion of UKraine in 2022, I remember reading an interview of an higher up in the FDF. He said that Russia is attacking Ukraine in way against which Finland has been training and preparing for all these decades. 20:46 Finland has decided to purchase the David’s Sling system. 22:00 And mines, lots of mines. Pretty new ones that are a little bit nasty pieces. Finland is getting also 4 new frigates that want to be called corvettes 😆 Finland was also smart during the peacefull period after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Finland bought from many countries equipment that were modern but almost unused. For example, Finland bought almost all Leopards (they kept like 16) and all their MLRS´s of the Netherlands Armed Forces 😆

[@Valokaari]

If you are interested, there is a video by the FDF about a potential (pre-NATO) scenario how Finland would react if it comes under attack. The video is called Taistelukenttä 2020 or Battlefield 2020 and has english subtitles (if you remember to enable those). How the scenario advances has scary similitaries on how Russia escalated the war in 2022.

[@Vulcaani]

Calls to remove swastika from finnish air force insignias are fragile flagburning tier foolishness.

[@Hurduri]

So you think we should keep honoring a swedish nazi with a swastika whose sister married Hermann Göring just because they donated a couple of airplanes?

[@mikkopunkari1676]

The Finnish Army used to be full of Ashkenazi (Khazar-Jews) officers deported from Russia by tsars (as e.g. Mannerheim). They had cool relations with Hitler's officers but allowed Germans to establish concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers to Karelia and even in Finland. Swastika from Finnish air force was not a problem.

[@hannumononen6345]

@@mikkopunkari1676 "allowed Germans to establish concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers to Karelia and even in Finland" -- What on earth are you talking about? Where exactly were those "German concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers" located, in Karelia / Finland? Who commanded them and how many prisoners did they keep? How did they end up at the final stages of the war? How come history knows nothing about these alleged "German concentration camps in Finland"? Only Putinists keep telling lies of the internment camps that were the normal practice in WW2 all over the world with enemy civilians who were considered as a security risk. It appears you are telling shameful lies to promote Putin's propaganda.

[@Vulcaani]

@mikkopunkari1676 Schizo posting here. How is mannerheim an ashkenazi?

[@ilililil490]

@@Vulcaani This guys 100% a russian pretending to be a finn (or god a johan bäckman bootlicker), ignore him completely.

[@effexon]

That last part is excellent thinking. As we see in Ukraine now, it would make sense for danes, germans, french, spain and italy have huge stockpiles of ammunition which they train and have planned how to move safely undetected quickly to right places in east likely. Now situation is abysmal, they cant help at all. That means more lives lost and much longer wars.

[@fredaap]

Just a remark on the side: the colour scheme of the like comment subscribe page looks more suited for a fashion influencer 😅

[@Timonen76]

Armored Brigade had, not 100% sure though that it still has, using BMP-2 IFV´s.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

They remain in active service. How many exactly I don't know, but somewhere around a 100.

[@kimmoj2570]

25:09 Dogs cant endure what humans can in forests. Finnish LRRPs tried them, but soon abandoned idea.

[@jlaa3500]

I don't think there will be HIMARS systems as we already have the M 270 systems that are modernized (including the better more far shooting and accurate missiles / rockets). They are very similar to HIMARS but have twice the capacity when it comes to ammunition, so no need to have different system on the side.

[@odaizoh]

Some finnish Jews actually were awarded the German Iron Cross. Quite funny for them to do that, but I guess that all they saw was names on a paper for the awards and did not realize they were Jewish. Finnish defense doctrine has changed a couple of times, and not always for the better, but it is very specific to allow the cheapest optimal solutions to be found. Examples: 1. The navy must fully mine 50km of a specific cost inside of 48 hours from first warning. Based on that you organize equipment, training and planning. 2. The army must have anti-air defenses set up inside of 48 hours cover the east flank of the Capital city to project some radar and projectile threat for first defense and inside 1 week be able to stop all single aircraft attacks from all altitudes and in 2 weeks defend the city from a major bombing attack from the air. These are just examples, not real cases, but with these you can already imagine how you really can start building an efficient system with preparations. There are alot of preparation done around the country for this. Hidden cables for military communication, pre-dug holes for wanks and artillery, covered with soft sand, easy to remove. All building have bunkers, bridges are built to be easily exploded, people in many social levels are trained for emergencies regularily. And as many have commented and as the video mentioned, we do not expect to win. We expect to resist. The Finnish defense force has a mandate to resist and assist the population in self defense. Even though what we have in equipment is decently impressive, in all out warfare we would have enough for maybe 1-2 months of full out war. And we don't have factories to make much more, at least not fast. That is where Nato comes in. Hopefully.

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thank you for your comments.

[@AdurianJ]

The Marines use the Spike ER not on vehicles but on foot. Its purpose is to prevent sweping of sea mines which is how you fight in the archipelago. You lay mine barriers that you protect.

[@Make573]

1:56 Correction: 3 wars, not 2. The 3 might be least known from all of them, called Lapland War, 1944-1945. And unlike previous 2, this was againts Nazi German in order to make expulsion of German Forces stationed in north of Finland as a part of the peacetreaty with Soviet Union.

[@Versosurma]

We have 200 hundred tanks in papers but i have good info from friends and relatives in higher defence positions who say that how it works is that there is very major number of tanks just in storage and filled as "parts" this means only that tank turrets are hoisted above from the hull so they fill that requirement. I was really suprised by every story about underground sites around the country and amount of weaponry just sitting there just waiting for the worst case. Really gave me confidence that people there know what they are doing. Idea is that big number of guns tanks etc are just there to fill that number that finnish serviceman need to train so why waste rest in use. So those number that people see dont tell us the reality. About bikes yes we still have them and use them to march not as they are some specific "Bike Regiment" xD Also one and biggest point that is usually not mentioned is how important that landscape is! You dont need to be general and go to google maps think how you can move tanks and defend when field is full of lakes trees narrow roads. how tanks can attack? how hard is to use drones or spot compared to flat fields.

[@petrituominen3353]

Finnish attitude called 'SISU' is most important thing and their knowledge of outdoor living and ability to operate in every terrain, weather with intelligence... and skills to do it. Winter war was just like that... and now fueled with 'rage and anger' for future to come. Perkele!

[@michaelshurkin613]

A reminder that I still need to see that movie. More importantly, I need to visit Finland!

[@petrituominen3353]

@@michaelshurkin613 🙏

[@3VVK]

Aina saa kärsiä ja hävetä..