alright, I was reading a WW2 magazine that claimed that after the Soviets had pushed the German forces back to warsaw, that Stalin had made an offer to Hitler, oddly, peace

now, am I the only one who doubts this offer would have been made? it makes no sense to me, The Red Army has the Germans on the run and decides in exchange for peace all they want is the border moved to warsaw?

and if this offer actually was made, what was Stalin thinking? the logic seems to fall short

There are reports of peace feelers being sent out after Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, which I think is where you're reffering to, if you could give me a date the article is talking about (even better, if you could give me the name of the magazine) I could help you better. But going on the tentative peace non-talks after Polkovodets Ruyantsev: by this point Kharkov and Belgorod had been liberated, and the Soviets have a foothold across the Dnepr. However, Russias already suffered over 20 million casualties in the war. The "Second Front" has not come yet, the western allies had liberated Italy, but had not successfully landed in Italy yet. Both sides were exhausted, and had expended vast resources in the conflict, yet by now the front was approximately back to where it started. And though power had clearly swung into favor of the Soviets, it was no simple march to Berlin. It looks like a small gap on a map of Europe, but it should be remembered that the Soviets still had more then 1000 km of German territory to advance through, which translated into 2 more years of Fighting, and millions more casualties. It makes sense that both sides would try to see if they could get a favorable peace at this point.

all it says is that they were at the gates of Warsaw when the offer was made, in Russia's favour

the magazine is just called World War II

I have never heard about it. Very interesting. This should gave Axis power to defend on west.

and if this offer actually was made, what was Stalin thinking? the logic seems to fall short

1. As Park pointed out, Russia had suffered many casualties and there's still a long way to go towards Berlin, and the Western Allies don't seem to be making progress. It would make sense to call for a stop to fighting now that the German threat had been dealt with.

2. There may be another reason. Had the Germans made peace, they would have more troops to deal with the British-American invasion in France and Italy. The Western Allies and the Axis could've fought each other to a stand still, while the USSR recuperates. Stalin could easily use this to his advantage.

stalin was hilghy consider a peace agrement when the germans came close to moscow.
but he in the end decited not to surender, and keep on the fight tell atleast moscow falls.
the odss are he whould have died if moscow fell, as he never acaly left the city when the germans came close to it.. it whould be intresting to see how difrent history whould be if he had offered peace in 41 like he was considering, or if moscow had been ceptuered and stalin killed or taken prisoner.

stalin was hilghy consider a peace agrement when the germans came close to moscow.
but he in the end decited not to surender, and keep on the fight tell atleast moscow falls.
the odss are he whould have died if moscow fell, as he never acaly left the city when the germans came close to it.. it whould be intresting to see how difrent history whould be if he had offered peace in 41 like he was considering, or if moscow had been ceptuered and stalin killed or taken prisoner.

As much as I hate Stalin (And by god I would like to put him to the noose!) I think its best that he didn't die. Despite being a monster, I believe at that point Stalin was a figure of high moral for my Russian comrades. He was a god in their eyes in a way, had he fallen, they would have lost hope.

I hate Stalin and I hate what he did but I wouldn't try and change anything that happened. What would stop it from getting worse.

@BEHIND_THE_MASK - yeah, Stalin was a hero and that's because after each Soviet troop sent to fight there was a NKWD officer with a pistol who shot those who tried to retreat :) Just joking of course :) I don't think it is true, what you wrote. Most of Soviet soldiers was from countryside, they were driven to go to battle, often even without a rifle. It's a highly unlikely that they thought about Stalin during the attack, they simply wanted to survive one more day... Going back mean sure death from hands of Soviet Secret Police officer, going forward gave you chance to live.
About the subject - allies knew that Stalin had an agreement with Hitler before war (Ribbentrop-Molotov pact). In fact WW2 was started by Hitler and Stalin together - they both attacked Poland in September 1939 (Hitler on 1st, Stalin on 17th). So they were allies until the attack in 1941, when Nazis invaded Soviets. So Allies did what they could to keep Stalin pushing west. One of the tokens they gave to Stalin was half of Europe, including Poland (Jalta Conference).

well yes, during a war not many people on the front think about their leaders while being shot at

however if they were to lose them, then it would be a major loss to morale, since people wouldnt shut up about it :p

I've never heard about that offer before.

From the Soviet perspective, it would be purely so the Nazi's could have fought the allies harder, and then the Soviets would have been able to sweep into Germany and taken a whole lot more. Which of course the Germans would have known...and thus not have accepted the offer.

@BEHIND_THE_MASK - yeah, Stalin was a hero and that's because after each Soviet troop sent to fight there was a NKWD officer with a pistol who shot those who tried to retreat :)
It was war...
BTW, not after each troop, but only after some

It was war...

Hmm I havent heard about many armies using same methods. I think better is: It was Stalin/It was ?Russia?

This sounds highly dubious. By the time Soviets reached Warsaw they were clearly militarily superior to the Germans and heading for a certain victory, having all but destroyed the German's Army Group Centre in a matter of days during the advance. Indeed, the main reason the Soviets stopped on the Vistula was that they'd out-run their supply lines and needed to rest before resuming the offensive.

Moreover, Warsaw is only about 300km from Berlin and the second front was well under-way by the time the Soviets reached the city. When the Soviet Armies had completed their refitting in early 1945 they were able to blitz across Poland in a matter of days and came close to taking Berlin 'on the bounce'.

In short, it seems very unlikely that Stalin would try to cut a deal with Hitler when he was clearly on the brink of victory.

exactly what i was thinking....

yet the magazine said it happened

What sources did it cite?

This sounds highly dubious. By the time Soviets reached Warsaw they were clearly militarily superior to the Germans and heading for a certain victory, having all but destroyed the German's Army Group Centre in a matter of days during the advance. Indeed, the main reason the Soviets stopped on the Vistula was that they'd out-run their supply lines and needed to rest before resuming the offensive.


Main reason why Soviets stoped was that they wanted Polish revolting againist Germans drown in blood.

Main reason why Soviets stoped was that they wanted Polish revolting againist Germans drown in blood.

Oh yeah, we Soviets are Monsters... haven't you ever just considered that perhaps we just couldn't help at the time, this is just more of your US propaganda. Its like the Finnish War. The Finns fired the first shots and yet you point at us, yell "COMMUNIST!" And send the Finns weapons.

*******s.

Warned for language. - KD

On November 26, the Soviets staged the Shelling of Mainila, an incident in which Soviet artillery shelled areas near the Russian village of Mainila, then announced that a Finnish artillery attack had killed Soviet troops

i see a reason behind calling them communists and then sending weapons....

i see a reason behind calling them communists and then sending weapons....

And that article was wrote in... America Im guessing.

wikipedia, could have been written anywhere

besides, just because it may be western doesnt mean they couldnt have shelled themselves

wikipedia, could have been written anywhere

besides, just because it may be western doesnt mean they couldnt have shelled themselves

I know that but Im just saying that you cant always believe what is read... besides things can happen from 2 diffrent points of veiw. Perhaps at Warsaw the americans would have tried more, but I believe that the Soviet Lines were already worn out and supplies spread thin (The latter Im no so sure of)

I actually recall reading that some ParaTroopers were sent and tried to assist the Poles but it just wasn't enough.

Besides. If the Pole's loss at the Warsaw Revolt failed because of us Russians. Dont blame it right on the Communists. Stalin's the one that hates the Poles.

I myself am part Pole. Mostly Russian though.

Its like the Finnish War. The Finns fired the first shots and yet you point at us, yell "COMMUNIST!" And send the Finns weapons.

*******s.

http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/pointandlaugh.gif

And people complain about neonazi history revisionists when there are turds like this floating around. :crazyeye:

Oh yeah, we Soviets are Monsters... haven't you ever just considered that perhaps we just couldn't help at the time, this is just more of your US propaganda. Its like the Finnish War. The Finns fired the first shots and yet you point at us, yell "COMMUNIST!" And send the Finns weapons.
*******s.

With first sentence I should agree;)

Behind the mask, did you read anything else than Marx, Engels, Lenin and the official Soviet history books?

Adler

Isn't this getting a bit off topic?

Personally I thought Hitler was an idiot, and the longer I study WWII the more I realize it. He thought he knew better than his Generals, and he had no bussiness starting an Eastern front when his West wasn't secure. And this is from a guy who gauranteed everyone in Germany there would be no two front war!

Personally I'm glad he didn't make peace and the Russians kicked his ignorant a$$

Personally I'm glad he didn't make peace and the Russians kicked his ignorant a$$

Its good to see word "personally", because be liberated by americans would save Central Europe from communism.

Its good to see word "personally", because be liberated by americans would save Central Europe from communism.

That was FDR's fault, he should have never agreed to give half of Europe to the USSR. I don't know what he was thinking, did he think free elections would continue? He should have told Stalin at Potsdam "No way will you interfer with free elections".

ps.. General Patton could see the problem, he wanted to re-orginize the Nazi's after their defeat and push the Russians back to Moscow. I don't know if I'd go that far but I definately would have taken a tougher stand against Moscow if I were FDR

FDR was in no condition to speak at Potsdam.

And Stalin wouldn't have taken kindly to being told to leave all that land. American's were relived the germans were defeated imagine the drop in morale if they had to fight the U.S.S.R., not to mention the fact that Russia hadn't declared war on Japan yet, if it did escalate to war because the western allies telling Russia to push back, the combined Soviet and Japanese fleets could overwhelm the Americans.

And Stalin wouldn't have taken kindly to being told to leave all that land. American's were relived the germans were defeated imagine the drop in morale if they had to fight the U.S.S.R., not to mention the fact that Russia hadn't declared war on Japan yet, if it did escalate to war because the western allies telling Russia to push back, the combined Soviet and Japanese fleets could overwhelm the Americans.


Japan still had a fleet...

Im Russian and I doubt that we culd have pushed the Americans back navy wise, that was what alot of America's war was, naval warfare, we didn't have as much or really that good of a fleet.

Though, I do believe we could have pushed the Americans back and outta France. and I doubt the A-Bomb wpuld ever get into Russian Territory, we had a rather great airfleet at the time I believe.

Well, if the US would have fought against the Soviets, too, like Patton wanted, I doubt Stalin would have been able to push the US out of France. He would have been lucky not to suffer another defeat. When the Russians took Berlin they were out of everything as supplies were rare. One single army would have been enough to push them out of Berlin and perhaps out of Germany too. It might have become another Stalingrad.

Adler

And the United States was providing the material to keep the Russian army and airforce running via the lend lease program. I doubt that this would have continued in a Soviet-American war.

Not only that but the Allies would now consist of USA, France, Poland, UK, Germany, and possibly China. It would have been interesting to say the least.

just after WW2? i doubt china would have fought the Soviet Union, Mao still respected Stalin as a revolutionary

Well, if the US would have fought against the Soviets, too, like Patton wanted, I doubt Stalin would have been able to push the US out of France. He would have been lucky not to suffer another defeat. When the Russians took Berlin they were out of everything as supplies were rare. One single army would have been enough to push them out of Berlin and perhaps out of Germany too. It might have become another Stalingrad.

Adler
Unlikely. America would have been completely unwilling to withstand the kind of losses to fight a war with Russia. America was extremely war weary by 1944, the Idea of America fighting another world war right away is absurd.

We, it wasn't too absurd. But here it was asked, what happened if. Anyway without many gasoline for aircraft and masses of trucks missing the USSR would have been in severe trouble.

Adler

We, it wasn't too absurd. But here it was asked, what happened if. Anyway without many gasoline for aircraft and masses of trucks missing the USSR would have been in severe trouble.

Adler

Wouldn't the Soviets have had access to the oil feilds of the Balkans and the Caucauses (I beleive thats the right spelling) Im sure they could have even pushed into the Middle East and seized valuable oil feilds.

We, it wasn't too absurd. But here it was asked, what happened if. Anyway without many gasoline for aircraft and masses of trucks missing the USSR would have been in severe trouble.

Adler
I would say the United States would sue for peace after the first couple of hundreds of thousands of casualties I.E. two weeks or so.

@ Behind the mask: There were still a great ammount of troops securing the oil fields. Also the Russians had also oil fields- but not many refineries being able to make aviation fuel.

@ Park: The Russians were hardly able to hold out a serious attack against them. That and the USAAF would made it for the Soviets to a desaster.

Adler

When the Russians took Berlin they were out of everything as supplies were rare. One single army would have been enough to push them out of Berlin and perhaps out of Germany too.

Those are ridiculous claims. The Soviet tactics at Berlin (eg, the massive use of artillery) seem to indicate that they had lots of all categories of supplies. Indeed, according to Anthony Beevor in his excellent history of the Battle of Berlin, one of the main reasons the Soviet losses were so high was that they committed too many soldiers to the battle and used artillery much more frequently than they should have given the high likelyhood of friendly fire.

By May 1945 the Red Army in Germany was well armed and highly experianed and about 2 million strong and would have taken an awful lot of beating.

On a similar vein if the Americans had tried to start an agressive war with the Soviets they may have trouble supplying their own forces. Churchill may have been quite happy to "shake hands with the Soviets as far east as possible" but even he would have been wary of going so far as to plunge into another costly, drawn out and to the British people unessecary war so soon after WW2 finished. The British economy was in tatters, we had severe manpower shortages and the population was also very war weary. Britain was a crucial staging point for the allied operations on the continent. The enormous majority of the supplies and manpower used passed through intact ports like Liverpool on the way to Europe. Just imagine having to re-route all the supplies elsewhere, having to re-deploy the bomber forces, rebuild the local infrastructure to cope with the increase in supplies and so on. This simply cannot be done overnight, it takes time, even with the vast resources of the USA behind the operation. I can't imagine that anything short of outright bribery (or the Soviets starting the war) would have brought the likes of France into such a conflict either, making life even harder.

Not that it really matters because fortunately neither the British or American governments were mad enough to seriously contemplate starting a war with Russia in 1945.

just after WW2? i doubt china would have fought the Soviet Union, Mao still respected Stalin as a revolutionaryAt that time, the still free regions of China were still under Chinese Nationalist control. Chiang Kaishek was the acknowledged Chinese leader. Even by the Soviets.

Though I doubt the Chinese will be of much use at that time...

damn, I should have known that

I actually studied the Chinese civil war last year, I was concentrated on the idea and forgot the date :p

The Chinese Communists didn't take power until 1949.

Unlikely. America would have been completely unwilling to withstand the kind of losses to fight a war with Russia. America was extremely war weary by 1944, the Idea of America fighting another world war right away is absurd.

Well the United States did get involved in another war as soon as 1950 but it has since been forgotten. I agree with you though. The American public probably would not have been to pleased to have to fight who had formerly been a heroic ally.

Well, if the US would have fought against the Soviets, too, like Patton wanted, I doubt Stalin would have been able to push the US out of France. He would have been lucky not to suffer another defeat. When the Russians took Berlin they were out of everything as supplies were rare. One single army would have been enough to push them out of Berlin and perhaps out of Germany too. It might have become another Stalingrad.


Like Patton wanted? Like Hitler and the remaining mad nazis hoped also, wasn’t it?

Well, the british Joint Chiefs of Staff of 1945 beg to disagree with you. Attacking Russia (“impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire”, nice way to put it) was considered and rejected as infeasible, according to this study, Operation Unthinkable (http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/).
Their conclusion was that in 1945 the odds for a war in Europe were against the allies, and even a possible success in a protracted total war would take many years.

Anyone knows of an official source for the documents, or when they were released? I recall some newspaper articles about them, but it would be nice to know for sure. I’m just wondering why they are not mentioned more often, when this kind of discussion comes up.

An interesting document, Innonimatu. I think you overrate its importance.
First, it assumes a worst-case scenario with Japan.
Second, it was written with no knowedge of the atomic bomb.
Third, it was authored at a lower level than "the british Joint Chiefs of Staff"
Fourth, its conclusion is limited to saying that a decisive victory against the Russians in the summer of '45 was dicey.

All things considered, it looks like a report hastily hacked out to placate the boss.

Gen Ismay's reaction is almost funny.

Well, if the US would have fought against the Soviets, too, like Patton wanted, I doubt Stalin would have been able to push the US out of France. He would have been lucky not to suffer another defeat. When the Russians took Berlin they were out of everything as supplies were rare. One single army would have been enough to push them out of Berlin and perhaps out of Germany too. It might have become another Stalingrad.

Adler

one army to push out the red army? You are crazy:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_berlin

2,500,000 soldiers,
6,250 tanks,
7,500 aircraft,
41,600 artillery pieces



http://youtube.com/watch?v=8gx9fI2mc7Q&mode=related&search=

Yes, I see, but the Russian forces were exhausted and lacked in supplies. Also about half of their tanks were disabled in the fights.

Adler

Perhaps you'd like to discuss the points Case raised in order to uphold that point Adler. Also perhaps you could cite a source for 3000 Russian tanks being lost (wiki suggests just under 2000 or 1/3).

Not that tank losses really mattered since the German army by then probably didn't have that many battle ready tanks in their entire army, let alone in Berlin. I wonder how many tanks one western army could have mustered? Its not like they would have lost many getting to Berlin after all, the Germans (with the exception of the die-hards) were falling over themselves in desire to surrender to the western powers rather than the Soviets.

Well the United States did get involved in another war as soon as 1950 but it has since been forgotten. I agree with you though. The American public probably would not have been to pleased to have to fight who had formerly been a heroic ally.
The war in 1950 was of much more contained nature. Recall how we were in the practice of firing war heroes to avoid another great war, and that was 5 years after the conflict. War weariness was even worse in England.

(wiki suggests just under 2000 or 1/3).

Even that sounds much too high. If it's correct, I suspect that it's a total of tanks knocked out, and not lost, and hence includes a large number of repairable vehicles (by this stage of the war I doubt that the Allies were doing much more with such tanks other than towing them to the scrap yards, however).

Incidently, I think that the entire German Army only had about 2000 tanks at the time of the invasion of Russia in 1941, which puts the size and power of the Red Army in 1945 in its proper context

That would seem to be a logical conclusion Case yes. I remember that when I was studying the early stages of the development of the IDF they had acquired a Sherman by unusual means. They bribed a driver of a tank transporter to allow them to transfer it to their own make-shift transporter. They were able to do this because the British had so many Shermans and other AFVs that they didn't want anymore that they were driving them up to a cliff edge and dumping them off into a gully. The Israelis simply got the driver to stop half way up and make the transfer on a side road.

The Americans should have started World War III once Cuban Missile Crisis escalated. They squandered that opportunity ...... and allowed the Russians to have nuclear parity within a decade. :D

The Americans should have started World War III once Cuban Missile Crisis escalated. They squandered that opportunity ...... and allowed the Russians to have nuclear parity within a decade. :D
Whats the point of nuclear parity with MAD?

The Americans should have started World War III once Cuban Missile Crisis escalated. They squandered that opportunity ...... and allowed the Russians to have nuclear parity within a decade. :D
Actually, it should have started over Hungary and the Suez - that way, not only is the hard atomic advantage preserved, but Soviet missiles are removed from the equation, even further increasing the likelihood of an Allied victory....

Actually, it should have started over Hungary and the Suez - that way, not only is the hard atomic advantage preserved, but Soviet missiles are removed from the equation, even further increasing the likelihood of an Allied victory....

The Suez crisis wasn't really with the USSR, it was the US delivering the killing blow to the British Empire and taking over from it.

Whats the point of nuclear parity with MAD?
The point is: If you really really want to go nuclear, use it against someone who has no means to return the favor. :D

The point is: If you really really want to go nuclear, use it against someone who has no means to return the favor. :D
But they did. They didn't have parity, but they still had enough to kill us all.

Probably the most the Germans could have done, had they started out with better intel was to force the Russians out of the war. However, that would have required the Germans to do the following:

1. Invest in long-range bombers earlier. (Historically, the Germans would have come up with bombers with enough range to attack American East Coast by 1946.) The Russian war economy was heavily dependent on massive industrial complexes east of the Urals, but their weak link was in their rail network. The pattern of Russian industrial deployment was fragile: The complex in Chelyabinsk (a.k.a. 'Tankograd') alone was responsible for over 1/3 of Russian wartime tank production. Compared to the Germans and the Allies, the Russians had weak civilian economy and more dependent on imported machine tools; there is less resources from the civilian sector to divert to military.

2. Destroying as many Red Army formations should be the most significant military objective, and do not allow the Russians to stabilize the frontlines. Fighting over a static front takes away German advantages and minimizes Russian weaknesses. Planned retreats should be used to keep the Russians off-balance; it also lessens Russian artillery superiority.

3. Play up tensions between non-Russians and the Russians, as well as between remote regions and the Kremlin.

4. To keep the Brits at bay, the Germans should not bother with expansive toys like battleships. Instead, invest in more subs and long-range aircraft. Germany is a continental power, not a maritime power; sea-denial should be its overall naval objective, not trying to outdo traditional maritime powers like Great Britain.

Oh yeah, we Soviets are Monsters... haven't you ever just considered that perhaps we just couldn't help at the time, this is just more of your US propaganda. Its like the Finnish War. The Finns fired the first shots and yet you point at us, yell "COMMUNIST!" And send the Finns weapons.


Yeah, our nation of 4 million people with outdated army really wanted to attack Soviet union.

Shelling of Mainila

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

"According to the archives of Soviet party leader Andrei Zhdanov, the entire incident was orchestrated in order to paint Finland as an aggressor and launch an offensive."


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559416/Russo-Finnish_War.html

"II Soviet Attack

On November 30, after having broken off all diplomatic relations with Finland, the USSR attacked Finland in an undeclared war. The Soviet air force bombed Helsinki and other cities; the Soviet fleet bombarded Finnish ports; and the Red Army pushed across the frontier."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

"The Winter War, also known as the Soviet-Finnish War or the Russo-Finnish War broke out when the Soviet Union attacked Finland on November 30, 1939, three months after the start of World War II. Because the attack was judged completely illegal, the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations on December 14."

Now please give me your unbiased (Russian?) sources that tell finns shot first?

You do realize that Wikipedia is a rather crappy site to prove a point... it cant really be to reliable.

So, could i have your reliable source? I can dig up more sources to back up my claims if you want to.

"The Shelling of Mainila was a military incident on November 26, 1939, during which the Soviet Union's Red Army imitated shooting at the Russian village of Mainila while pretending that the shelling originated from Finland on the other side of the nearby border and claiming losses in personnel, thus getting a great propaganda bonus that launched the Winter War four days later."

"In 1998, President of Russia Boris Yeltsin admitted that the shelling was done by the Soviets."

http://www.answers.com/topic/shelling-of-mainila

Russo-Finnish War (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia)

(1939 – 40) War waged by the Soviet Union against Finland at the start of World War II, following the signing of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. When Finland refused to grant the Soviets a naval base and other concessions, Soviet troops attacked on several fronts in November 1939. The heavily outnumbered Finns under Carl Gustav Emil Mannerheim put up a skillful defense until February 1940, when heavy Russian bombardments breached the Finns' southern defenses. A peace treaty in March 1940 ceded western Karelia to Russia and allowed construction of a Soviet naval base on the Hanko peninsula.

http://www.answers.com/topic/finnish-russian-war

REPORT AND RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY
OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, DATED DECEMBER 14th. 1939.

http://www.histdoc.net/history/league1.html

"After the alleged violation of the frontier, the Government of Finland immediately ordered an inquiry. It was found that the cannon-shots mentioned in your letter were not fired from the Finnish side. It appears, on the contrary, on investigation, that there was firing on November 26th from 15.45 to 16.05 o'clock (Soviet time) on the Soviet side of the frontier in the vicinity of the village of Mainila, which you mentioned. On the Finnish side the points could be seen where the shots had fallen, close to the village of Mainila, situated not more than 800 metres from the frontier, beyond an open field. From the explosions caused by the seven shots which were heard, it was clear that the point where the arm or arms in question were fired was at a distance of about 1½—2 kilometres south-east of the place where the shots exploded. The competent frontier-guard post made a note of the shots, in the official record, at the actual moment of the incident."

http://www.histdoc.net/history/ykoskinen271139.html

"(7) Christian Waselius, student, department of History, University of Helsinki, Finland (14th January, 2002)

In the article written by Mr. Tarnovsky it is said that "Finnish troops attacked Soviet territory with artillery fire" on November 26th 1939. This incident that happened in the small village Mainila, was made by Soviet troops and put up as a reason for the Red Army to attack Finland. Finnish frontier guards also recognized the explosions on the Soviet
side of the border. For that time being, the closest Finnish artillery guns were placed so far away from Mainila that it would have been impossible to reach the place with artillery gun fire."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSfinland.htm

"On September 1, 1939, German troops crashed across the Polish frontier in a blitzkrieg and took Poland in a matter of weeks. Stalin's troops moved into the Baltic States and eastern Poland with ease. On November 26, 1939 a border "incident" at Mainila, which even the Russians did not believe, took place."

http://www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html

"The Shelling of Mainila was a military incident on November 26, 1939, during which the Soviet Union's Red Army imitated shooting at the Russian village of Mainila while pretending that the shelling originated from Finland on the other side of the nearby border and claiming losses in personnel, thus getting a great propaganda bonus that launched the Winter War four days later."

http://shelling_of_mainila.totallyexplained.com/

answers.com is only slightly better than wikipedia but the others are good (btw way awsome avatar I just read shadow of the hegemon :) )