24-01-2005 13:55									#271
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Che is no Stalin apologist. He's a Trotskyist, and the opposition to Stalin and stalinism is an important part of the identity of this group.

He's a communist apologist, and he apologises for whatever comes up. What else explains his vehemence in this thread about Stalin?

	24-01-2005 14:02									#272
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I'm not trolling you. I'm laughing at you. Everyone else understand exactly what I wrote, and agrees with me and sees that you're just a tempest in a teapot. Okay, I have trolled a couple of times, when I get irriated that you won't simply accept the simple fact that if you had not acted, Leningrad wouldn't have starved. Sure, it's fun watching you get apoppleptic when I say you're Nazi stooges, but then you go and lob me something like that dancing to German covers, without realizing that so frigging ironic!

What a crock of ****. The finns moved back into the land the Sovs stole from them long before the Germans arrived at the outskirts of Leningrad.

The complete incompetence of the Sovs in 1941 is not in any way their responsibilty. What could be hung on them is what happened during the winter. Except they did nothing to interfere with the supply of Leningrad during the winter, even though snuffing the lifeline would not have been a hard thing for them to do.

	24-01-2005 14:16									#273
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither He's a communist apologist, and he apologises for whatever comes up. What else explains his vehemence in this thread about Stalin?

This is speculation from my part, but I'd imagine he dislikes the exaggeration about Stalin's crimes, whose reality is already dreadful enough.

More speculation on my part: he could be thinking that, by inflating the horrors of Stalinism, the capitalists give themselves a feelgood reason not to criticize the crimes of their own system (which he mentioned in other threads: famines, lack of medication...)

	24-01-2005 14:19									#274
	Increase Your PM Length

Millions died under the regime of Stalin. Millions of Soviet citizens. He admits 10 or 20 million and then goes berzerk when someone mentions the upper estimates of 40 or 50 million. Then he flails around with 'some' and then attacks with '10's of millions per year under capitalism.'

If you ask me, he is the one needing the feel good reasons to not hate the ideology he has embraced.

	24-01-2005 15:13									#275
	Increase Your PM Length

nye teh pwnage

	24-01-2005 15:54									#276
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither They could have cut the lake road in a heartbeat.

What lake road? The only lake road was in the east of the city in the Schisselburg-Siniavino area and this was the area where the battle of Leningrad was more hotly contested as all the other land routes into the city were held by the Germans and yes, by the Finns. Anyway, this part of the front was not on the Finns' side so there's no way they could've cut the road. Likewise the claim that they could've taken the city if they wanted to is utter hogwash. Two Soviet armies (8th and 23rd) held the northern approaches into the city facing the Finnish Southeastern Army during the first crucial winter. Precisely because neither the Finns nor the Germans could conceivably capture the city was why it was starved to death. Leningrad was not Stalingrad where its capture was hanging on a thread.

That said, there is defenitely truth in the affirmation that the Finns contributed in starving the city - even if they did not lay siege to it - merely by holding on the land routes up north. Nevertheless considering that it was land taken away from them just a year before I honestly don't see why this can be taken against them. Did they ally themselves with the Nazis? Yes, because they perceived their national-strategic goal to be regaining their lost territory, and an alliance with Germany would be the most effective solution. I do think that some of you Finns' responses have been a wee bit to over-sensitive and too dismissive of these facts but then again, considering che's apologetic stance towards Soviet crimes against humanity, they utterly pale in comparison.

	24-01-2005 16:15									#277
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Master Zen, Not correct. Your statement is dangerous, because it is close to the truth, but a bit off, so it is hard to tell for a novise if you are mistaken or not, which you are in some points, which makes the differencies.

First of all, Finns never intended to capture Leningrad.

However your writings reveal some information that you have indeed taken some time to investigate, so kudos to you.

However, our main goal was also not to regain the lost territories, however they could be seen as partial goal, sure why not. BUt waht was more important was to prepare for the coming SU invasion. After all, nothing had changed after the winter war. The situation was very much the same. It was just a breather in between.

We didn't consider Nazis to be most effective helping in that situation. That is why Nazis didn't participate in large numbers to the pushing back and regaining the territories, but had main responsibility in the north, so SU couldn't flank us and cut the country in half again, which we woudl have been most likely unable to defend against, with limited troops and equipment and interest.

Finns would have taken any help from anyone. Hitler, however, was the only one who offered it and had the access to us at the time. Also remember, that Finns and Germans have had some history together before, militarily, so we could have been considered bro's-in-arms before the WWII in a way. There also has been lots of history with SU, not all of it is bad though.

Hitler offered free food, weapons and troops to us, without demanding anything back. This means, that we weren't demanded to pay for it in money, or in services aka strategic cooperation into detail. Of course we couild if we wanted to, but it wasn't demanded to this agreement. Which was made by the current president, secret from the government and everyone else, making it an illegal pact from our point of view, so it wouldn't stand if Hitler would demand something, and the country couldn't be hold responsible for it. But the president could be and was.

But, the road of life was easy to take for us. The thing is we never tried and wanted to. Che and you are the only two people I have ever heard to argue against this, and in Che's case it doesn't matter because he doesn't know anything about it anyway.

The fact is, Finns blocked the first bombings etc, and started pushing and it was relatively easy to go to the point they went and then they dug in, voluntarily, not forced. The sitaution for over 2 years was pretty easy for Finns. The only difficult phase in Continuation War was when SU started their major offensive at the end of the war. Up until that, it was like a summe vacation for little boys (no disrespect).

We were not interested in Leningrad at all. Or starving Leningrad. It didn't fit into our plans. Just because SU had established some support routes, too bad, like I said, it was tactical error from SU and Stalin, and only Stalin can be blamed for those mistakes.

I accept that we allied with Nazis ONLY if the other person knows the subject more than the usual, which means only few people, however then I don't care if that wording is used. Because they know what it means. Rest think teh wrong.

I accept that the support troops were in our way, however this fact is contributed to Stalin and no one else. I don't believe in 'I'm sorry to exist' logics. I do not accept any responsibility for it. I accept that Finns had something to do with it, but in a way IBM had to do with Nazis, or any other indirect entity, whose goals were not in it.

But using that logic, everybody starved everybody.

	24-01-2005 16:34									#278
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Pekka Master Zen, Not correct. Your statement is dangerous, because it is close to the truth, but a bit off, so it is hard to tell for a novise if you are mistaken or not, which you are in some points, which makes the differencies. First of all, Finns never intended to capture Leningrad. However your writings reveal some information that you have indeed taken some time to investigate, so kudos to you.

Agreed. IIRC it was Finish policy to advance towards the old border line and hold out there while the Germans would be the ones to actively campaign for the city.

quote: However, our main goal was also not to regain the lost territories, however they could be seen as partial goal, sure why not. BUt waht was more important was to prepare for the coming SU invasion. After all, nothing had changed after the winter war. The situation was very much the same. It was just a breather in between.

This is interesting, why prepare for a SU invasion? Weren't the Finns confident that the Germans would win the war in the end (at least until 42-43)? It was not until early '43 where the Soviet Siniavino offensive finally broke the blockade that the city began to breathe again and until then the fortunes of the German Army had been rather optimistic elsewhere.

quote: But, the road of life was easy to take for us. The thing is we never tried and wanted to. Che and you are the only two people I have ever heard to argue against this, and in Che's case it doesn't matter because he doesn't know anything about it anyway.

quote: I accept that we allied with Nazis ONLY if the other person knows the subject more than the usual, which means only few people, however then I don't care if that wording is used. Because they know what it means. Rest think teh wrong. I accept that the support troops were in our way, however this fact is contributed to Stalin and no one else. I don't believe in 'I'm sorry to exist' logics. I do not accept any responsibility for it. I accept that Finns had something to do with it, but in a way IBM had to do with Nazis, or any other indirect entity, whose goals were not in it. But using that logic, everybody starved everybody.

Yes, I agree that there's no reason to apologize. If Finland apologizes for Leningrad, then the SU should first apologize for its indiscriminate bombings of Finnish cities, let alone its illegal invasion of a country which had done it no harm.

	24-01-2005 16:44									#279
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Right, I think our leadership have figured Germany would win the war for a long time. However it doesn't mean SU wouldn't invade here again, in fact it would mean even more so. After all, our soil would have been fairly doable, it's just that SU didn't put enough resources at the first time, and on the second time they had other things to worry about.

It was apparent to both, that there would be an attack. SU was thinking that attack from our side would be fairly likely, and our side was sure that SU would try again. It was evident to both. It's difficult to know for sure who was provoking more at the borders before it started again, but I just consider it was going to happen anyway, it was unstoppable, something that had to happen for some reason and both sides knew it. We consider the war many times one war, from winter war to continuation war as one, since there was just a short vacation in between, but both just built up more instead.

But sure I think our leaders thought that Germany would win, however, what were the plans IF Germany wins are anyones guess. True nationalistics would have naturally wanted a piece of SU lands for us in 'reparations', and create Greater Finland. However those peeps were miserably small minority, but I think it's worth mentioning.

Had we turned down if Germany had offered us some lands, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Would it have been justified? I don't think so.

But I don't also believe that would have come into play. Hitler would have most likely pressure us against the Swedes possibly, or come against us straight up from the north and east, choking Sweden in between. I think that would have been more likely. Then again, I think they would have offered some kind of deal first without war. A POS deal like Stalin offered us. Not really a deal, but more like 'I let you live if..'. Would we have taken that deal? I don't know. Depends on the deal. Depends where the other allied had been at the moment, US etc. It gets too complicated to predict. I think for us the only thing to truly think is had we then had to fight Hitler on our own soil or not. Well we did, but .. that wasn't how it came down.

	24-01-2005 16:49									#280
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Are you still debating whether Finland had any involvement in the siege of Leningrad?

	24-01-2005 16:56									#281
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Tass, are you still alive?