This cropped up in an off topic thread so I thought I'd start a new one here to expand on it a bit.

My knowledge of the war between these countries is as follows:-

USSR demand territorial concessions from Finns in 1939. This is resisted and war starts. Zero help received by Finns from any of the European powers but, surpirisngly, they kick ass in the 39/40 winter due to better knowledge of terrain and excellent training and tactics. Huge losses suffered by USSR. Also Soviets were badly led and equipped all round. Eventually, the Soviet's manpower overwhelmed the Finns and they extract all they wanted from them in the first place.

At this point my knowledge runs out. What happened next? I know the Finns joined the Nazis in attacking USSR as part of Barbarossa - was this with German assistance or did they go it alone? Were German troops/air force operating from Finland? Were the Finns looking to recover their lost territory only or did they get sucked into the "destroy Bolshevism" crusade wholeheartedly? Who was leading Finland at this time? I thought it was a democracy in 1939 - was there a pro-Nazi coup or something as in most East European countries?

Finally, what was the outcome in 1945? Did USSR seize even more territory as punishment or did things end up as they were in 1940 again? Did Finland get away with it or were they accused of war crimes? (waging aggressive war for example).

I know thats a lot to ask but any details or links would be great - I cant find anything about this aspect of WWII anywhere.:mad:

EDIT - I tried the dumb wars thread for this one too and the link there but both only dealt with the 39-40 war not the aftermath

The Finns made a separate peacewith USSR in 1944, after being the only nation that stopped a major russian sommer offensive after 1942.

This resulted in some fighting with german troops stationed in Northern Finland. These units devastated Northern Finland and Norway as they retreated from the persuing Russians.

To my knowledge, no Fin was ever convicted of warcrimes. Some territories were lost (I think parts of Karelen) and the territory gained by the Russians in the winter war 1939-1940 was also part of the Russian war booty.

Hope this will help

Thanks:goodjob:

Anyone else got any info for me?

The basis of the Soviet-Finnish (or "The Winter War") had nothing to do with Finland. Finland had a quality that all Eastern European countries find themselves tainted with at some point or other in their history; they're at the wrong place at the wrong time.

1939 was filled with everybody in Europe negotiating with everybody else because the belief had sunk in across Europe that war was coming so you'd better line up your allies right now. The Soviets were negotiating with both the Allies and Hitler in the spring, but the fact that Stalin fired his Jewish foreign minister (Litvinov) in March was a subtle indication that he was leaning towards an agreement with Hitler over the Allies. Stalin and Hitler carved up Eastern Europe with their Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact on 23. August, but both still feared and had secret plans for the other. Stalin realized that his defensive position in the Baltic was weak so he made the demands on Finland for the short isthmus north of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) and some naval bases near Helsinki. The Finns refused, so Stalin staged the November shelling of a Soviet border village to make it look like the Finns attacked (Sure little Finland would attack the USSR....) and the Winter War began.

You know the rest, that the Soviet Army got pathetically bogged down against the small but professional Finnish Army throughout the winter and the USSR's poor military performance is supposed to have influenced Hitler into deciding he could conquer the Soviet Union. (This may indeed be true, but modern historians point out that about the same time the Soviet Army was performing so badly in Finland against an inferior foe it was performing superbly against a superior foe in Asia, against the better-armed Japanese in Mongolia along the River Khalkhin Gol.) Finally the Soviets did overwhelm the Finns through sheer numbers, and for reasons never adequately explained Stalin let them off relatively easily. It has been said that STalin respected military force and he developed a respect for the Finns because they stood up to him - maybe, but a lot of us also stood up to him and we didn't get off nearly as easily as Finalnd did.

Anyway, the Finns naturally fought on the German side against the Soviets when Hitler invaded the USSR, but the Finns refused to fight outside of territory that had been Finnish before the Winter war - p*ssing off Hitler and relegating the Finns largely to occupation duty in Soviet Karelia and the occasional support shelling of Leningrad during the Nazi 900-day unsuccessful seige of that city. When the Soviets broke the seige of Leningrad the Finns fell back to Finland proper and eventually signed an agreement with the Soviets whereby the USSR would not consider Finland a hostile country if it got rid of the German troops in the country by x date. The Finns complied (some fighting between old allies there) and they spent the decades of the Cold War as a subserviently neutral but essentially free country, outside the Soviet sphere (read: "empire").

The rest of us in Eatsern Europe all drooled about "a Finnish Solution" to our occupation by the Soviets, for instance in the 1956 Hungarian Revolution Imre Nagy withdrew from the Warsaw Treaty/Pact and declared Hungary a neutral state "along the lines of Finland". The term "Finlandization" was tossed around Eastern European political circles right into the 1980s as a possible means of ending direct Soviet occupation; (something along the lines of, "We'll behave and not criticize you if you just LET US GO!"). It ultimately became irrelevant in 1989...

RodgersEventually, the Soviet's manpower overwhelmed the Finns and they extract all they wanted from them in the first place.They took a lot more than they wanted in the first place. Almost half a million Finns lost their homes. The evacuation was one of the greatest in history.

Now, how we ended up on the Nazi side.

To begin with, let me point out that there was a small group of nationalists in Finland who wanted to conquer the ethnically Finnish territories of Russia. This group did not have any political power though.

Finland was a democracy and noone in the government had any sympathies towards the Nazis and their cause. However, our situation got dangerous in 1940, a few months after the end of the Winter War, when Germany took Norway and Russia the Baltic. We were now blocked by Germany on one side and the USSR on the other.

The Russians had a military base inside Finland. The new border we got in 1940 was also very hard to defend. Stalin had said in a speech that the Winter War was "not over". And the Russians had troops INSIDE our country. It became apparent that we either had to do something or lose our independence.

So the government tried to balance this by allowing German troops from Norway to travel trough Finland on their way home. This tied us to Germany, but also guaranteed our safety.

In 1941 the war between Germany and the USSR began. Hitler declared that "the Finns fight along with us". Our formal neutrality was no longer credible and Russian bombers started bombing Helsinki.

We now had a well equipped army and the help of Germany. Our enemy was weakened by it's long frontline and the troops it required. The Finnish army took back the land that was lost in 1940, crossed the old border and took an even greater terrirtory for buffert zone. I would show you a map but I can't find any :( The intention was not to conquer new land, but Great Britain declared war on us nevertheless.

In 1943 it became obvious that Germany would not win. The problem was that if we signed peace with the USSR, Germany wouldn't tolerate it and do God knows what.

Three days after D-Day the USSR launched a major attack on Finland. The Finnish army evacuated the buffert zone and concentrated all troops on stopping the superior Russian army. Against all odds it was stopped - and the Russians moved away their troops to fight Germany.

Finland signed a peace later that year. The terms were hard - in addition to what we had lost in 1940, we now also lost Petsamo, which connects Finland with the Arctic Sea. We had to pay huge sums of money to Russia, not because of war crimes, but because we were the losers. The terms were abóut as though as those put on Germany after WW1.

Like Plomeros states, the German army devastated Northern Finland after the peace treaty was signed.

I think when you look in the historical dictionary of phrases, under "Between a rock and a hard place" You find a picture of Finnland.

Your nation has my respect for just surviving, let alone prospering in the shadow of the Soviet Union. :goodjob:

I agree that Finland's performance in the war, and thereafter is quite a credit to the Finns.

One aspect of Adebisi's post I do find unfulfilled is the implication that Finland only reentered the war on Germany's side because Hitler made a radio speech.

That would seem to run against the heroic independent streak that the Finns displayed in nearly every other situation. I think it is more likely that there were many in government who welcomed the opportunity to get revenge on the hated Russians, and why not, clearly Hitler's side looked to be the right bet when the decision was made.

Bill

This is all brilliant stuff. One last question, did any of the nastiness seen in the rest of the eastern theatre crop up on the Finnish front or was it straight fighting? Were any of those German troops in Finland SS?

Someone mentioned extreme nationalist Finns being around - did they get up to anything bad? The general tone seems to suggest nothing untoward did go on, but I thought I'd check.

There were many nationalities on the Waffen SS, among them some Finns. These men served on other fronts though, as far as I know. Interesting note, there was an English Waffen SS. These did not fight any battles though and were used as a firebrigade and other "peaceful" tasks.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
One aspect of Adebisi's post I do find unfulfilled is the implication that Finland only reentered the war on Germany's side because Hitler made a radio speech.

That would seem to run against the heroic independent streak that the Finns displayed in nearly every other situation. I think it is more likely that there were many in government who welcomed the opportunity to get revenge on the hated Russians, and why not, clearly Hitler's side looked to be the right bet when the decision was made.Yes, Hitler didn't look as bad then as he does now. The commander of the Finnish army, CGE Mannerheim, disliked him however, and realised the danger of cooperating with such a man.

The way the war broke out is a bit complicated. We didn't start it. But yes, once it did start, Finland gladly accepted the opportunity to take back the land we had lost (considering there was a big refugee crisis). Removing the dangerous base inside Finland and taking a buffert zone (the border was, like I said before, hard to defend) also had high priority.Someone mentioned extreme nationalist Finns being around - did they get up to anything bad? The general tone seems to suggest nothing untoward did go on, but I thought I'd check.They were trilled by the fact that the buffer zone was on ethnically Finnish territory, and hoped that Finland could keep it after the war. Commander CGE Mannerheim was not a nationalist in that sense though. The official goal was to just keep a territory between a small territory between Finland and Russia.One last question, did any of the nastiness seen in the rest of the eastern theatre crop up on the Finnish front or was it straight fighting? Were any of those German troops in Finland SS?The bufer zone was on ethnically Finnish land, so it was suitable as a buffer zone. It had been heavily russified by Stalin and Lenin though. The small Russian population in the territory was put into concentration camps. The intention was to keep them there until the end of the war.

They were treated well in the concentration camps however. They recieved more food and water than the average Russian, I think.

Originally posted by Adebisi
Finland signed a peace later that year. The terms were hard - in addition to what we had lost in 1940, we now also lost Petsamo, which connects Finland with the Arctic Sea. We had to pay huge sums of money to Russia, not because of war crimes, but because we were the losers. The terms were abóut as though as those put on Germany after WW1.

Yep, as if the territory cedings hadn't been enough, Finland had to pay war preparations worth 300,000,000 in 1938 U.S. dollars to Soviet Union. It is speculated that the actual value of the products may even have exceeded 500 million dollars.

Fortunately, there were some benefits in having to pay the war preparations too: Finland had to raise its output and develop its industry in a very fast pace. This led to a rapid structural change in the society and economy in the next two decades and enabled Finland to become the modern affluent country it is nowadays.

More great info :D

Intrigued to hear of the English Waffen SS - any links or otherwise you could pass on to me? Would love to hear more

My picture of the English Waffen SS has been that they weren't actually armed troops but British POW's who were ordered to do construction work and such. Am I wrong?

The English Waffen SS was mostly made up out of Brittish (Nationals, not Indians, Africans and so on) troops captured at Dunkirk.

No, they were not armed, although officers (britts) were carrying a sidearm. The britts made a few requests to be put in combat on the Eastern Front, but this was not allowed.

As far as I know, they were few in nubers and more of a propaganda effort from the Germans then a real try to build a Brittish Waffen SS unit, like the Ukrainians, Dutch or Scandinavians

The Finns really screwed themselves during World War II...siding with the Nazis to fight the U.S.S.R really didn't help them improve relations with the United States.

Go back and read my first post in this thread.

It was two choices - Communist regime and deportation to Novaya Zemlja, or siding with the Nazis for protection.

What would you choose? You're not too fond of communism yourself.

And let my state again: Finland did not support the Nazi cause. The government knew the risks and did they're best not to tie us to the Axis powers. But what is inevitable is inevitable.

About the United States. In 1941, after Finland had taken back Carelia (the lost territory) and began pentrating into Russia, commander Mannerheim set a few controversial goals for the war - among those to "free our Finnish brothers in Eastern Carelia from the bolshevik tyranny". The intention was to raise the morals among the troops, since many disliked the choice to cross the old border and go into Russia. It woke strong feelings in the British government however, who accused us of taking "Lebensraum". Britain had already broken off trade due to the presence of the German army in Finland.

Some time later Britain accused Finland of ignoring Russian peace offerings. The US was behind these, but Stalin saw them as a loss of prestige, and later denied that they had taken place. Well, assuming they did, Britain used it as an axcuse to break off all relations. They later declared war on us and the US broke off all diplomatic contacts.

Well, I'm sure the U.S. would have provided support, unless Slobadon Roosevelt had a fear of Finns as well as legal Japanese immigrants.

Originally posted by Rodgers
USSR demand territorial concessions from Finns in 1939. This is resisted and war starts. Zero help received by Finns from any of the European powers but...

This is not entirely correct. The were some volunteers who entered the war on the Finnsh side. Most notable was the Swedish Volunteer Corps, which successfully helped the Finns defend the northern parts of Finland. The Swedish neutrality made the sweidsh state resist any volunteer efforts (not to talk about sending in actual military units), so it took a while for the volunteers to mobilize and move over to Finland.

The swedish volunteers accounted for about 10,000 persons (of course, not all saw active duty). Of these, 33 were killed in action and 185 were wounded. Other volunteers were Danes (about 1000), Norwegians (about 700) and Hungarians (about 350).

There was also a strong pro-Finland support in England, but the english government did not want any volunteers to go to Finland. Those men were needed against Germany. Anyway, after quite some while, about 100 englishmen came to Finland. However, before they reached the front, the war ended.

It turned out to be quite some problem for the English to return home. Soviet would naturally not allow them to pass, and Sweden was very reluctant, too, since they saw this as a breach against their neutrality. Negotiations with Sweden proceeded slowly, and a few of the englishmen were allowed to return. However, before all could be sent, Germany attacked Soviet with Finland as an ally. Now, these englishmen were quickly interned in Finland as a kind of trump. England was reluctant to be too harsh on Finland as long as Finland had potential english POWs.

Some of the english didn´t return to England before 1944.

Originally posted by Rodgers
Finally, what was the outcome in 1945? Did USSR seize even more territory as punishment or did things end up as they were in 1940 again? Did Finland get away with it or were they accused of war crimes? (waging aggressive war for example).


About the war crimes.

The president of Finland from Dec 19. 1940 was Risto Ryti, while marshal Mannerhein was the commander-in-chief. When the Soviet attacked in 1944, Finland was desperate. With obsolete equipment, they were afraid they would be overrun by the Soviets. At the same time, Finland was also very eager to make peace with Soviet, but this was of course difficult with Germany still at war and with German troops stationed in the Northern parts of Finland.

So, president Ryti made a deal with Hitler. In exchange for modern weapons (most notably Panzerschrecks and other anti-tank weapons) he decided he would never make peace with Soviet without German approval. The weapons were shipped over and Finland stopped the Soviet attack (of course, the german equipment was only part of this fantastic effort).

So, when the Soviets were stopped at the border, Ryti resigned and the new president signed a peace treaty with Soviet.

The Soviets created a war tribunal in Finland, but they only had an observer´s role. The judges were Finns. Many leading Finnish politicians and some military staff were put on trial, but not Mannerheim. In 1946, Ryti was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment in a penitentiary, but was pardoned in 1949. All other sentenced war criminals were soon pardoned, too, as Finnish-Soviet relations grew better.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The Finns really screwed themselves during World War II...siding with the Nazis to fight the U.S.S.R really didn't help them improve relations with the United States.

I disagree. Britain was weak at the moment and France was a castrate, not to speak of neutral Sweden. They also were afraid of huge losses an intervention could have caused. And, to remind you, the previous Soviet offensive against Finland had just ended (that has already been mentioned here) and the Russians had a military base in Hanko. Stalin was planning to take Finland eventually, if not right then, then later when the time was right.

The Finnish government was left alone with bad options, and they chose what they thought would be the lesser bad. If you'd have asked anyone in Europe at that time which was the strongest nation here, the answer would rather certainly have been "Germany".

Washington must have aknowledged that Finland was in a very difficult position and foreseen the danger of letting Russians take the country. U.S.A. never declared war on Finland, by the way, though it might well have done so. After the war Finland was offered Marshall aid but it had to decline it because of the political pressure from Soviet Union and the willingness to stay neutral between the Cold War competitors.

As it turned out, Nazi Germany was not what it was thought to be, but unfortunately no one knew it at that time. Finland can't be proud it had to be on the same side and tolerate the Germans' politics. However, despite German propositions the Finnish government managed to save our own Jewish population. And we can also be proud that we had the chance to remain independent, an option not given to many of the involved nations in the aftermath of the war.

Wars, in general, are just a sick mockery of humanity.

Thank you Hurricane, I forgot about those.

RMSharpe wrote:

The Finns really screwed themselves during World War II...siding with the Nazis to fight the U.S.S.R really didn't help them improve relations with the United States.

No, the Finns looked at the war through the lens of a colonial people struggling to finally rid themselves of an imperial power. Westerners are accustommed to seeing World War II presented as Good Guys vs. Bad Guys, when in reality the various combatants had different reasons - some quite legitimate - for joining one or the other side. Hungary and Bulgaria also were not pro-Nazi so much as finding they were best able to fix their interbellum grievances through Germany - and until 1943, it was a toss-up for most Europeans as to whether Hitler would win the war or not. Finland, Hungary and Bulgaria all balked at helping Hitler with his rabid anti-Semitism, for instance, and all three did a much better job of saving their Jewish populations than France did.

18th century Finland was a part of the Swedish imperianum until Sweden became enmeshed in the Napoleonic order in Europe, which ended with Russia taking over Finland in 1809. Finland then spent from 1809 until 1918 in the Russian empire. After a nasty littlepost- World War I civil war between "Reds" and "Whites" (with active Soviet support for the Reds), Finland re-established its independence. However, back in 1809-1811 when Finland became a part of the Russian empire, the Russians changed some of the borders, giving Finland much of the isthmus north of St. Petersburg but keeping Karelia (eastern Finnish region). When Stalin made his demands for the isthmus back and the Finns balked, he set up a Provisional Finnish communist government in Moscow and let it be known that as soon as his armies made it to Helsinki, Finland would become communist - if not the 17th Soviet Socialist Republic. Finland saw the opportunity in World War II to get its territories back - never demanding non-Finnish territories or territories not historically associated with Finland - and as I mentioned in my earlier post resisted joining any of Hitler's other adventures, even within Russia.

The U.S., as Adebisi mentioned, did break relations with Finland as a show of support for its new ally, the Soviet Union, but American sympathies for the Finns in their struggle against an imperial power is shown quite clearly in the Foreign Relations of the United States for the war years, the official collection of American diplomatic correspondence.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Well, I'm sure the U.S. would have provided support, unless Slobadon Roosevelt had a fear of Finns as well as legal Japanese immigrants.


We did pretty well without didnt we?

we got some figthers from USA at end of war, but we never got chance to use them

Let´s continue to talk about one actual Finnish atrocity, more specifically the deportation of Jews to concentration camps in Germany.

There were about 2500 jews living in Finland at the outbreak of WW2. There were some antisemitical trends during the 30s, but mostly people feared the Russians, and since many of the jews had moved to Finland from Soviet, they too got a share of this "russia-hate". I don´t know of any actual damage made to either jews of their property, however. Some right-wing papers had antisemitical articles, but that was about it.

When the Jews started to flee from Germany during the mid 30s, very few were allowed to come to Finland. Only about 500 came before 1941, and of these, 350 shortly continued to neutral or Allied countries.

Finland entered the war as a German ally in 1941. There were abour 300 jews in the Finnish army, who now paradoxically were fighting alongside the Germans.

In 1942, there were about 150 Jew refugees, who had fled to Finland from Germany or other countries occupied by Germany. There were held in refugee camps. About the same time the Norwegian jews were taken care of, Germany demanded those refugees were returned to Germany. After a very heated debate in the government, 8 Jews were shipped over to Germany.

Of these, only 1 survived.

Not long ago, the Finnish prime minister, Mr. Paavo Lipponen, apologised to the Jewish community for this cowardly act.

Originally posted by Adebisi
In 1941 the war between Germany and the USSR began. Hitler declared that "the Finns fight along with us". Our formal neutrality was no longer credible and Russian bombers started bombing Helsinki.
[/B]

To be precise (:D), Hitler didn´t say "the Finns fight along with us", but rather that German and Finnish troops together are defending the Finnish soil. Of course, everybody understood that "the Finns fight along with us" is what he meant.

This is the radio speech in its full length. I hope you know German, cause I won´t translate it. :p I have marked the important passage with bold text.

"Heute stehen rund 160 russiche Divisionen an unsere Grenze. Seit Wochen finden dauernde Verletzungen dieser Grenze statt, nicht nur bei uns, sondern ebenso im Hohen Norden wie in Rumänien.
Russische Flieger machen es sich zum Vergnuegen unbekuemmert einfach diese Grenzen zu uebersehen, um uns wohl dadurch zu beweisen das sie sich bereits als die Herren diese Gebieten fuehlen.
In der Nacht vom 17 zum 18 Juni haben wieder russische Patrouillen auf deutsches Reichsgebiet voergefuehlt und konnten erst nach längerem Feuergefecht zurueckgebtrieben werden. Damit aber ist nunmehr die Stunde gekommen in der es notwendig wird diesen Komplott der juedisch-angelsächsischen Kriegsanstifter und der ebenso juedischen Machthaber der bolschewistischen Moskauer Zentrale entgegen zu treten.
Deutsches Volk, in diesem Augenblick vollzieht sich ein Aufmarsch der in Ausdehnung und Umfang der grösste ist den die Welt bisher gesehen hat. In Verein mit finnischen Kameraden stehen die Kaempfer des Siegers von Narvik am nordlichen Eismeer. Deutsche Divisionen unter dem Befehl des Eroberers von Norwegen schuetzen gemeinsam mit den finnischen Freihetshelden unter ihren Marschall den finnischen Boden. Von Ostpreussen bis zu den Karpathen reichen die Formationen der deutschen Ostfront. An den Ufern des But, am Unterlauf der Donau bis zu den Gestaden des Schwarzen Meeres vereinen sich unter dem Staatschef Antonescu deutsche und rumaenische Soldaten. Die Aufgabe dieser Front ist daher nicht mehr der Schutz einzelner Länder sondern die Sicherung Europas und damit die Rettung Aller. Ich habe mich deshalb Heute entschlossen das Schicksal und die Zukunft des deutsches Reiches, und unseres Volkes wieder in die Hand unserer Soldaten zu legen. Möge uns der Herrgott gerade in diesem Kampfe helfen.
Berlin 22 Juni 1941, Adolf Hitler"

EDIT: By the way, it was Goebbels who actually spoke in the radio, but Hitler was credited as the author of it.

Detail-whore :p

Sorry. It´s a bad habit. :D

http://www.tpk.fi/fin/instituutio/presidentin_lippu.gif

hmm...

Information is availible, Rodgers, just look for continuation war in a google search, and first try Winter War.
Winter war:
http://www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html
http://www.feldgrau.com/wwar.html
Continuation war:
http://www.wargamer.com/rtm/contwar.htm
http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror/sa-int/joukotjatkosota.html
http://www.mannerheim.fi/10_ylip/e_jatkos.htm

Churchill never felt Finland was guilty of anything
but self defense. For weeks he postponed and
delayed a British declaration of war against Finland.

His letters to FM Mannerhiem in his history of WW2
prove this.

I know of no case of the western allies firing on Finnish
forces. (Running conveys to russia, put them in the area)

Total_cho: I guess you are implying that the swastica on the Finnish flag has something to do with Nazism. Fortunately, you are totally wrong.

The history of the Finnish swastica dates back to 1918 (this was during the Finnish independence war), when the Swede Eric von Rosen donated a plane with a blue swastica on a white bottom painted on it to the Finnish armed forces (the swastica was von Rosen's symbol). This was Finland's first army plane, and as a thanks, they kept the symbol as the sign of the air forces to honor von Rosen.

Also note that the swastica stands upright compared to the nazi one, which is tilted 45 degrees.

I would also like to additionally point out that the swastica is an extremely common symbol, and has been used for thousands of years, mainly in Asia and South America. There was also an americaninfantry division which used the swastica as their symbol, but this changed after USA declared war on Germany.

The picture is of the plane after landing in Vaasa in 1918.

[EDIT]: Just thought that I needed to point out that Hitler did not get the idea of his Swastica from the Finnish one, but from the original Indian (Hitler would say Aryan) sources.

Well why it is still banned?(?)

There's other flag too...

http://www.uta.fi/suomi80/LIPPUK4.GIF

Originally posted by Total_cho
Well why it is still banned?(?)

There's other flag too...

http://www.uta.fi/suomi80/LIPPUK4.GIF

In fact... It's not! :D

It is only the Nazi swastica (tilted black swastica on red background) that is banned.

The other symbol is the Finnish coat of arms, the Finnish lion, which always has been the "real" symbol of Finland. Note that the swastica only was for the air forces and on the presidential flag (which also has the lion in the middle).

Top links AoA - thanks! My head is now filled with Finnish history to my hearts content! :goodjob:

Anytime Rodgers. ;)

Both of those "little wars" withen greater wars are quite interesting, bot from an historical and operational basis.

For example, the term "Molotov cocktail" dates from the winter war, an obvious slap at the Soviet Forign minister at the time, it was a bottle or jar filled with a flamable solution used as an improvised anti-tank weapon (The fins called enemy bombs "Molotov breadbaskets", but I don't seem to know why! )

No I think they were banned.
Otherwise Bush may have some plans against Finland:D

Originally posted by Total_cho
No I think they were banned.
Otherwise Bush may have some plans against Finland:D

:confused:

Please elaborate.

Well I think it was one term of peace with USSR that Finland will bann all nazi stuff(swastica, whites ect.)

So I can walk everywhere in Israel and USA with swastica t-shirt and no-one will even note it because it's only the holy symbol of buddism?

Read my post again. The Nazi swastica is NOT the same as the buddhist or Finnish swastica. The Nazi swastica is banned, the others not.

And everyone knows it.

At least here in Finland, yes. :p

For example, the term "Molotov cocktail" dates from the winter war, an obvious slap at the Soviet Forign minister at the time, it was a bottle or jar filled with a flamable solution used as an improvised anti-tank weapon (The fins called enemy bombs "Molotov breadbaskets", but I don't seem to know why! )

Are you sure? I have heard that it was "invented" by a man called Molotov. I'm not sure though.

The name of the Forign minister was Molotov.

Ps:Back

Yes I know, but that doesn't prove anything.

AoA is right. The name was intended to mock the Russian foreign minister, Molotov. Since the Molotov cocktail was a simple fire bomb, I don't think there is any named inventor.

Shargon;

the US supplied finland with some aircraft during '39 and '40 although they were not modern, aircraft such as the F-2A Brewster Buffalo helped Finland control the skies in the winter war.

Here is something I know about Soviet-Finish war.

The cause.
August 1939. The world is slipping down to war slowly. The English government tries to calm the raging Germany - after the famous disgraceful Munich, the English lords are getting ready to give Germany the whole Poland. The last attempt to make an alliance is maid on 23rd August 1939 - that was the soviet-french-english meeting. The diplomats from french and especially english side were ready to give Russia orders and obligations, but at the same time they tried to keep themselves uninvolved in war actions, it looked like they would be in safety no matter what happens. The meeting failed. Simultaneously with soviet-french-english meeting Molotov signed the pact with Germany that guaranteed peace between USSR and Germany, this action did not contradict any international rights statements, because France and England had already signed such pacts with Germany (and it didn't help them, hee-hee-hee). But as an additional document there was created the "Secret agreement about territories, USSR and Germany are interested in" - this agreement was a payment for Stalin's neutrality in the future war. According to it, numerous countries and territories were shared between USSR and Germany (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania (Bessarabia)). Germany made a present for a Soviet Union, giving it the whole Latvia, Estonia and Finland. So, Soviet union attached all the territories that were offered, except Finland - it remained independant. Stalin ordered to conquer Finland in 2-3 weeks.
The Soviet-Finnish war has shown the weakness of Red army. Soviet Union won that war, but what price did it pay? 75-80 thousands dead, and Finnish lost 20-24 thousands people. But why there were 80 thousands dead - it seems impossible for a small 105 - days war? The reason is that Stalin shot all the officers of rank higher than captain in 1938-1939 (even generals and marshals) why did he do that? - because of his cowardrice, he was afraid of any possible revolt against him, so he preferred shooting people before they say a word, and it didn't matter whether they were guilty or not. So as they say, Soviet army was "headless". And what about the Finnish army? The defense secretary of Finland was the former general of Russian Empire that immigrated to Finland. He was very experienced person and made the great system of fortifications, so the soviet losses could even be greater. There are many names for that war: Finnish call it "winter war" soviets call it "soviet-finnish war" the Russian poet and writer Tvardovski called it "unfamous war" (not "unknown", but "unfamous"), and the majority of scientists call it "the war that couldn't have happened" . Why "coudn't have happened"? - Because there were some successful meetings of Soviets and Finnish, where all the territorial questions could find the answers.

I'll attach there a map if I'm be able to find it; a map about what territories we received after that war.

I'll attach the gif-animated image, if there are some problems, i'll save it as an archive. It shows the borders of Finland throughout its whole history.

We'll let me show all the treaties in history that formed the Russian-Finnish borders.
1323 - Orekhovets peace treaty
1595 - Tiavzin peace treaty
1617 - Stolbov peace treaty
1721 - Nishtadt peace treaty
1743 - Abos peace treaty
1809 - Friedrichsgamm peace treaty
1920 - Yuriev peace treaty
1940 - Moscow peace treaty
1947 - Paris peace treaty

Originally posted by Bifrost
According to it, numerous countries and territories were shared between USSR and Germany (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania (Bessarabia)). Germany made a present for a Soviet Union, giving it the whole Latvia, Estonia and Finland. So, Soviet union attached all the territories that were offered, except Finland - it remained independant. Stalin ordered to conquer Finland in 2-3 weeks.

Don't forget Lithuania! :D In fact, Soviet demanded similar things of Finland as they did of the Baltic states. They wanted military bases and a correction of the border around Leningrad (they offered to give some small territorities in northern Karelia as compensation), but Finland rejected all these offers. As the Baltic states were annexed to Soviet in 1940, this was in hindsight the only right thing to do.

The Soviet-Finnish war has shown the weakness of Red army. Soviet Union won that war, but what price did it pay? 75-80 thousands dead, and Finnish lost 20-24 thousands people. But why there were 80 thousands dead - it seems impossible for a small 105 - days war?

The losses were in fact much higher than that. Casulaties for Finland were 66,406 (of which 26,662 dead) and Soviet losses were 391,783 (of which 126,875 dead). Source (http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd/casualti.htm)

The reason is that Stalin shot all the officers of rank higher than captain in 1938-1939 (even generals and marshals) why did he do that? - because of his cowardrice, he was afraid of any possible revolt against him, so he preferred shooting people before they say a word, and it didn't matter whether they were guilty or not. So as they say, Soviet army was "headless".

Perhaps not surprisingly, this is exactly what Saddam Hussein does today (and Hitler did at the end of the war). Staying in power means you have to be paranoid to the extremes.

And what about the Finnish army? The defense secretary of Finland was the former general of Russian Empire that immigrated to Finland. He was very experienced person and made the great system of fortifications, so the soviet losses could even be greater.

Mannerheim was born in Finland in 1867. As many young nobles, he started a military career. As Finland was an autonomous part of Russia at this time (since 1809), he served in the Russian army. There were several successful Finns in the Russian army, and they took part in most of Russia's operations during the 19th century (the wars against the Turks, the Crimean war and also the Russo-Japanese war). I think it is worth mentioning here that the Finns always were very loyal to the czar - the czars during this time often spent the summers in the Finnish archipelago since they felt the most secure there. After the first world war, Mannerheim returned to Finland where he became commander of the "whites" in the Finnish independence civil war (against the "reds").

There are many names for that war: Finnish call it "winter war" soviets call it "soviet-finnish war" the Russian poet and writer Tvardovski called it "unfamous war" (not "unknown", but "unfamous"), and the majority of scientists call it "the war that couldn't have happened" . Why "coudn't have happened"? - Because there were some successful meetings of Soviets and Finnish, where all the territorial questions could find the answers.

I'll attach there a map if I'm be able to find it; a map about what territories we received after that war.

As I already wrote above, the negotiations were never particularly successful, and the result of those would eventually have been the full annexation of Finland. Finland's military loss was thus a major political win.

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Shargon;

the US supplied finland with some aircraft during '39 and '40 although they were not modern, aircraft such as the F-2A Brewster Buffalo helped Finland control the skies in the winter war.

Luckily, the Soviet planes were not that good either. Finland's best ace, Ilmari Juutilainen, managed to down 94 enemy planes over the course of WW2.

I'm sure about Molotov.

Germany sold Finland Curtis Mohawks (captured from France, many still crated, first recieved in 1942), to augment the aircraft presented by France, Britain and the USA (which included the Buffalo, only the Finns ever had any luck with it, all other airforces were slaughtered when using this type).

At the start of the winter war, Finland had the following figthers:

36 Fokker D.XXI at Immoloa (HLeLv 24)
10 Bristol Bulldog IVAs at Raulampi (HLeLv 26)

During the winter war, Finland purchased the following aircraft:
(Figthers only are listed, Finland also had bomber and recon squadrons)

Fiat G-50 Italy 35
Gloster Gladiator II UK 20
Brewster 239 (Buffalo) USA 44
Hawker Hurricane I UK 11
Total 110

Recieved as gifts:

Gloster Gladiator II UK 30
Morane 406 France 30
Caudron C.714 6
total 66

Finland's top scores in the winter war was Captain Jorma K. Savanto, HLeLv 24 with 13 kills (he would add 4 more in the continuation war)

Ft Mstr Juutilainen had only 2 kills in the winter war.

All information is from "The Finnish Air Force 1918-1968" by Christopher F. Shores and Richard Ward

Alcibides:

Thanks for the complete info on the Finnish airforce. The reason the Finns had luck with the Buffalo is they did not fly it against the zero which all other countries that used the F-2 did. (notably the US at midway and the Dutch in the west indies) It would be 1944 before the Russians would produce a plane roughly equal to the Zero.

The losses were in fact much higher than that. Casulaties for Finland were 66,406 (of which 26,662 dead) and Soviet losses were 391,783 (of which 126,875 dead). Source

Look at the source of this source, I can't say anything about information about Finns, but the information about russian losses is dated by 1993, Russian author, I would advise you not to believe the Russian sources dated before 1996. I think this point of view is an exclusion. The modern sources give the numbers I wrote, I can also say that only 6 thousands from finnish side were shot, others died because of frost-bitting. Unfortunately, I can't show the sources, because they are Russian-written. But all the books I read say the same numbers. Where those 126thousands are taken from?

Edit: reviewed my source: Russian losses-> 72408 killed; Finnish losses->19576 killed; frost-bitten from Russian side 132 213. Others wounded or prisoned

On what grounds do you claim Krivosheev's 1993 figures are wrong? And who and why is the author of your source more reliable?

The modern sources give the numbers I wrote, I can also say that only 6 thousands from finnish side were shot, others died because of frost-bitting. Unfortunately, I can't show the sources, because they are Russian-written. But all the books I read say the same numbers.

This is just plain BS. The number of Finnish soldier who froze to death was negligible. Of the 26,662 Finnish dead, 23,857 were killed in action. The rest were either MIA or died of other causes. Some of these might have been frost-bitten.

The newest and source worth respect says something about Russian losses (there is not a single word about Finnish losses, but I should correct the previous messages to prove I'm not a stupid stubborn and I am able to change my mind if I consider such action reasonable). So russian losses =333 thousands dead! , among them 80.000 people killed in action, others frost-bitten (the major part) and lost.

Well, I have to take your word for it then. I guess a 100% correct number never can be found. Which author was that?

By the way, what's with the KK in your new avatar?

Dear Hurricane!

Bifrost wrote - Germany made a present for a Soviet Union, giving it the whole Latvia, Estonia and Finland.
You answered - Don't forget Lithuania! :)

I was sure that somebody show you this little point, but there is a silence then I would try ;). Hitler DIDN'T present to Stalin Lithuania - if I remember correct - according "pact Ribbenthrop-Molotov" Lithuania was in German sector of occupation. By the way - in 1939 Lithuania was agressor herself -= her forces entered Poland as well as German & Soviet forces! (Lithuania acquired "Vilno region" & change name of city to Vilnius - modern Lithuania capital).
In 1940 Soviet Union took Lithuania as well as Latvia & Estonia in one mighty sweep "forgetting" about pact "Ribbenthrop-Molotov" & this case became starting point for German preparation of "Barbarossa". Germans made next reasoning - "Stalin intentionally breached conditions of "Ribbethrop-Molotov" pact taking Lithuania in German sphere of influence, then he hasn't intention to keep his promise in whole document."
This issue was raised by accused German officers in Nurnberg tribunal, but their reasoning was waved out by Rudenko on basis: "There weren't any secret part of Ribbenthrop-Molotov pact then - any mention of some paragraph of that document is rubbish, because there wasn't document itself! :)

Oh, it's really interesting & shadowy aspect of Soviet-German interaction in 1939-1941 & there are... "some tigers in this wood" as well ;).

Sincerely yours, Alex.

It's not "KK" in Bifrost avatar. it's Cyrillic "J" or "G" as in english "jade" or "gentle". I used see this abbreviation on "woman" door in watercloset, or as abbreviation of word - "as.". I think - in this case it is manifestation of our Russian alphabet - this letter never used in other Cyrillic alphabets if word in question is not direct calc from Russian.

EDITED - strange thing with my browser: in one moment I get my messages in this tread in other I haven't :confused:???
Then I just repeat one of my previous messages OK?

Dear Hurricane!

Bifrost wrote: Germany made a present for a Soviet Union, giving it the whole Latvia, Estonia and Finland.
You answered: Don't forget Lithuania!

I was sure that somebody would raise this issue earlier, then I didn't respond. Well...

Hitler DIDN'T presented Lithuania to Stalin. In secret part of Ribbenthrop-Molotov treaty Lithuania was in German sphere of influence, due to some problems between Germany & Lithuania around Memel/Klaipeda territory. Other reason was - Lithuania was ally of Soviet Union & Germany in "Poland Division", because Lithuanian military forces took Vilno region & was claimed by English side as "aggressors" as well.

When in 1940 Soviet forces took Lithuania as well other Baltic states, this case became trigger-point for german preparation of plan Barbarossa. In Nurnberg process German officers made next reasoning - "Soviets breached Ribbethrop-Molotov pact in just one paragraph by entering Lithuania, which was in German sphere of influence. It means that they can breach any other paragraph of this document as well". Their words was waved out by Rudenko on basis: "There wasn't any secret part of Ribbenthrop-Molotov Treaty, then there weren't any paragraphes in this "Secret part" & no one side can breach any non-existent thing!" :)

Well, it seems there are ... "some tigers in this wood"!

Originally posted by A_Bashkuev
Dear Hurricane!

Bifrost wrote - Germany made a present for a Soviet Union, giving it the whole Latvia, Estonia and Finland.
You answered - Don't forget Lithuania! :)

I was sure that somebody show you this little point, but there is a silence then I would try ;). Hitler DIDN'T present to Stalin Lithuania - if I remember correct - according "pact Ribbenthrop-Molotov" Lithuania was in German sector of occupation. By the way - in 1939 Lithuania was agressor herself -= her forces entered Poland as well as German & Soviet forces! (Lithuania acquired "Vilno region" & change name of city to Vilnius - modern Lithuania capital).
In 1940 Soviet Union took Lithuania as well as Latvia & Estonia in one mighty sweep "forgetting" about pact "Ribbenthrop-Molotov" & this case became starting point for German preparation of "Barbarossa".

Im no expert on this issue, but the matter seems more complex than that. This is a quote from here (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/sesupp.htm):

The undersigned Plenipotentiaries declare the agreement of the Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R upon the following:

The Secret Supplementary Protocol signed on August 23,1939, shall be amended in item to the effect that the territory of the Lithuanian State falls to the sphere of influence of the U.S.S.R., while, on the other hand, the province of Lublin and parts of the province of Warsaw fall to the sphere of influence of Germany (cf. the map attached to the Boundary and Friendship Treaty signed today). As soon as the Government of the U.S.S.R. shall take special measures on Lithuanian territory to protect its interests, the present German-Lithuanian border, for the purpose of a natural and simple boundary delineation, shall be rectified in such a way that the Lithuanian territory situated to the southwest of the line marked on the attached map should fall to Germany.

Further it is declared that the economic agreements now in force between Germany and Lithuania shall not be affected by the measures of the Soviet Union referred to above.

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Reich:
J. RIBBENTROP

By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.:
W. MOLOTOV.

So a second secret document was written late in September, where Lithuania was transferred from the German field of interest to the Soviet. Apparently, Lithuania never undertook any offensive action or any other "aggressions".

Germans made next reasoning - "Stalin intentionally breached conditions of "Ribbethrop-Molotov" pact taking Lithuania in German sphere of influence, then he hasn't intention to keep his promise in whole document."


Hitler had planned to attack Soviet much before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The pact was only to ensure peace in the east while Hitler was busy in the west.

I DID mention Lithuania. And you'd better read the messages more attentive than correct something you didn't manage to see. According to my knowledge Lithuania was shared between Russia and Germany in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (Memel region to Germany, the rest - to Soviet Union). I don't think that taking Lithuania was the real cause of "Barbarossa".

I'm a bit confused with all the documents you mentioned. As far as I know, there were three documents - "Soviet-German non-agression pact" and "Secret pact" - both 23 august 1939 and "Pact about the friendship and borders' fixing" 28 september 1939.


BTW: That's funny to notice my avatar looks like "KK" :lol: this letter is read as "zh" or ,if you can read french, as "j" in words "jouer" or "je". well, I think I'll change the avatar soon, to my real initials, perhaps - I have no time to invent something else.

All the conversation reminds me argument about some trifles, that don't even worth the time we spend typing our replies, or you both find fascinating talking whether Lithuania became Soviet territory on 23august or five weeks later - to my mind it wouldn't have influenced the result. Talking about Lithuania needs another thread to start, I'd love to talk about Lithuanian fascism or culture or History, or Language, or.... well, all in all I find It more interesting than talking about the formal date of joining USSR.

Originally posted by Bifrost
I DID mention Lithuania. And you'd better read the messages more attentive than correct something you didn't manage to see. According to my knowledge Lithuania was shared between Russia and Germany in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (Memel region to Germany, the rest - to Soviet Union). I don't think that taking Lithuania was the real cause of "Barbarossa".

I just wanted to point out that you didn't mention what eventually happened to Lithuania. And because it actually wasn't part of the topic I added the smilie. You did see that, didn't you?

I'm a bit confused with all the documents you mentioned. As far as I know, there were three documents - "Soviet-German non-agression pact" and "Secret pact" - both 23 august 1939 and "Pact about the friendship and borders' fixing" 28 september 1939.

Ok, this was then the third document.

BTW: That's funny to notice my avatar looks like "KK" :lol: this letter is read as "zh" or ,if you can read french, as "j" in words "jouer" or "je". well, I think I'll change the avatar soon, to my real initials, perhaps - I have no time to invent something else.

:lol: Stupid me. Maybe I should start studying Russian. It seems very interesting.

All the conversation reminds me argument about some trifles, that don't even worth the time we spend typing our replies, or you both find fascinating talking whether Lithuania became Soviet territory on 23august or five weeks later - to my mind it wouldn't have influenced the result. Talking about Lithuania needs another thread to start, I'd love to talk about Lithuanian fascism or culture or History, or Language, or.... well, all in all I find It more interesting than talking about the formal date of joining USSR.

Very true. I just felt I needed to point out the worst generalisations in A_Bashkuev's posts.

Dear Hurricane!

You wrote: I just felt I needed to point out the worst generalisations in A_Bashkuev's posts.

OK. You stated that Lithuania wasn't aggressor in 1939. Well. Try to explain what Lithuanian military did in Vilno region of Poland in Sept 1939. Try to explain English reaction on that. Let's abstain from our mutual knowledge about events of 1940.
You stated that it wasn't aggression - pls, explain what is it???

BTW. I've got exemplar of Deutsche CONTI atlas of 1936. Vilno region was belong to Poland there. Pls, explain method of moving this region from Poland to Lithuania in Sept 1939.

BTW. Third document in Ribbethrop-Molotov bargain was result of Lithuanian invasion into Poland. Germany & Soviet Union got a feeling that Lithuanian position was changed after that doing - "a little". Then third document was result of Lithuanian government deeds - not reason of it. You try to place cart before horses in this issue ;).

I don't told that German accusant talking about Lithuania problem had sound juridicial ground - it seems that Germans tried to bring attention of USA & Britain auditorium to the issue of "Ribbenthop-Molotov pact" itself, - not Lithuania situation especially. If actual text (from August 1939) of secret part of Ribbenthrop-Molotov pact was published in 1946 (with or without september 1939 addendum - no difference) Soviet Union would be looking worse & in some sense Nurnberg process would gone to "slightly" different course. Do you see?

Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. I warned you - there are tigers in this wood! ;)

Originally posted by A_Bashkuev
OK. You stated that Lithuania wasn't aggressor in 1939. Well. Try to explain what Lithuanian military did in Vilno region of Poland in Sept 1939. Try to explain English reaction on that. Let's abstain from our mutual knowledge about events of 1940.
You stated that it wasn't aggression - pls, explain what is it???

I think we will have to look a bit further back to get some perspective.

The first Lithuanian state was established in 1230, and Vilnius was founded in the 14th century, and it was during the 14th and 15th centuries that Lithuania was one of Europe's largest kingdoms. In 1569, Lithuania and Poland merged into a commonwealth. In 1795 most of Lithuania was annexed by Russia, and it took until after WW1, until Lithuania again regained its independece in 1918. Vilnius was again made the capital.

In November 1918 Lithuania started to form its army to defend the country against the invasion of Bolsheviks. German troops left Lithuania but fights with Bolsheviks lasted until the early 1920s. On June 12, 1920, Russia recognized the Lithuanian state and its independence. But at the same time Lithuania had to defend itself against the Bermondt troops (joint Russian and German army fighting against bolsheviks seeking to re- establish the former Russia). During this confusion Poland violated the Suvalkai Treaty and occupied the Eastern Lithuania with its capital Vilnius (the capital was transferred to Kaunas).

In 1923, the Memel region was returned to Lithuania. However, it was again returned to Germany in 1939 after heavy pressure.

After the Polish invasion in Sept 1939, Poland was split between Germany and Russia. The Polish-occupied parts of Lithuania was split, so that the eastern parts of that region was annexed with Belorussia, and the western parts (including Vilnius) were given back to Lithuania. Of course, this was already after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact's secret agreements. Soviet demanded that they get to station troops inside Lithuania in exchange for the territory they gave, and soon afterwards, the legal Lithuanian government was overthrown, and a new Soviet-friendly puppet government took over the power.

So to answer your question: what Lithuanian military did in Vilno region of Poland in Sept 1939? Well, they entered territory that then was part of Lithuania! By the way, what English reaction are you talking about? :confused:

BTW. I've got exemplar of Deutsche CONTI atlas of 1936. Vilno region was belong to Poland there. Pls, explain method of moving this region from Poland to Lithuania in Sept 1939.

As you see, the Vilnius region had always been a part of Lithuania. In 1939 it was given back to its rightful owner (even though military decisions were behind the real reasons).

BTW. Third document in Ribbethrop-Molotov bargain was result of Lithuanian invasion into Poland. Germany & Soviet Union got a feeling that Lithuanian position was changed after that doing - "a little". Then third document was result of Lithuanian government deeds - not reason of it. You try to place cart before horses in this issue ;).

No, the third document was written after Lithuania had refused to attack Poland together with Germany. It should be clear by now that Lithuania never invaded Poland.

I don't told that German accusant talking about Lithuania problem had sound juridicial ground - it seems that Germans tried to bring attention of USA & Britain auditorium to the issue of "Ribbenthop-Molotov pact" itself, - not Lithuania situation especially. If actual text (from August 1939) of secret part of Ribbenthrop-Molotov pact was published in 1946 (with or without september 1939 addendum - no difference) Soviet Union would be looking worse & in some sense Nurnberg process would gone to "slightly" different course. Do you see?

I agree with this part, but it does not change anything what I said.


Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. I warned you - there are tigers in this wood! ;)

Thanks. I always like a good debate. :)

Dear Hurricane!

I'm don't like to stir this barrel, but... Are you sure that the SOVIET TROOPS marched in Vilnius in Sept 1939 & "gave city to Lithuanians after that"??? Are you sure that Soviet troops "gave back" any city to their right/wrong owners in 1939???
When I worked in Institute of Inorganic Chemistry in 1985-1992 I (as "lesser scientific worker" I was asked to be translator for foreign scientists) met very many peoples - one of them was Prof. Zhdanovich from Poland. He is marvelous man & very good scientist, but except that he had very good military experience: he was Sergeant in Polish Army in 1939 Campaign (he thought that this low Rank gave him a chance to miss "Katyn forest") & after that he enter Anders' Army (after soviet concenration camp experience) & got couple medals & Orders for Anders' Army campaign (he was especially proud for Montecassino).
He got very big grudge against Stalin/Soviet invasion in 1939/"Sovetization" of Poland after WWII & didn't try to hide his attitude (his high status in science let him). (I'm afraid he had a hidden grudge against Russians as well, but he was civilized enough for not bringing this issue in public). He was very polite, but every time when he remembered his friends in Polish Army who went to Katyn, I felt some distinctive... "edge" in his voice.
(I've lost my grandma in Stalin prison in 1939 myself & I used to hear this... "edge" in Stalin description in my father & grandfather words as well. If you wondered again - no, we are not dissident family, - my granfather was released in 1940 from the Prison due to his pupils helping. He went to WWII & got all possible Soviet Orders & citations except Hero Star for his wrong "raising & origin".)
Well, I'll return to my story - professor Zhdanovich told us that they were completely crushed - when they see Soviet aircraft over their retreating to Lvov... He told that in first moment they thought that Soviets came to help Poland & had intention to fight Germans, because they heard about Soviet-German mutual grudge after Spain Civil war... Then Soviet bombers began bombing their retreating column... Old Professor described this so:
"I knew that Hitler was bad, I knew that German nationalists named us as "Untermensh" & tried to convert us into slaves. But I was young & considered myself as Socialist - then I've got a dream about Soviet Union... I believed that in Soviet Union people were free & all this usual stuff & named all Pilsudsky-propaganda about Soviet Russia as simply trash... I was sure that very good people went to Spain for "international imperialism fighting". Then these "good people" bombed us... They bombed soldiers & civil people. They bombed medical train & peasant' carts with simple people belonging... I think it was day when I lost any stupid socialist ideas for good & never look back for them. Then - in next day I herad about the Lithuanians attack us as well. I was sure that we were the same Family. I was sure that we help them against Russian Empire & they helped us...
I tried to understand Russians & tried to say for myself - they were barbarians, they were our sworn enemies - it was their reason, but message about Lithuanian invasion just broke me apart. It was day when we stop moving & simply sat & were waiting for our inprisonment... My soul was empty. Just empty. First - socialist ideas gone, then - nationalist as well... Do you know, looking back I think that Lithuanian invasion was for me hundred times worse then German or Russian... I was ready to see enemies in them, but Lithuanians... It was foul deed, indeed. I think God punished them for this foul doing - we lost fighting, they sold themselves out - very cheap..."

Sincerely yours, Alex

Thanks for the post A_Bashkuev! :) I love to read stories from people who were actually involved in the events.

Still, as a sergeant in the Polish army when it was in a more or less chaotic situation might mean that Prof. Zhdanovich didn't hear the whole truth, or he might remember wrong (which I doubt).

After the League of Nations first had given Vilnius to the Lithuanians, and after the Polish took it, reversed and gave it to them in 1920, the relations between Lithunia and Poland became very inflamed. In fact, Poland never recognised Lithuanias declaration of independence, while Lithuania kept their official as Vilnius, and Kaunas as a "temporary" capital. Diplomatic relations were not established, and small skirmishes regularly occured at the demarcation line.

In 1939, Poland understood it needed Allies against Germany's ever increasing threat. In a somewhat peculiar fashion, Poland started a diplomatic war against Lithuania after another minor border incident, and demanded that diplomatic relations be set up. Poland would recognise Lithuania, in exchange for Lithuania's ceasment over their demands of Vilnius and other occupied territories. The big western countries, Britain and France, didn't want to see more tension, and pressured Lithuania to accept the demands, which they also did. However, the both countries stood at the brink of starting WW2.

The Polish manouver, however, came much too late to bring any real advantages for them. Soon afterwards, Germany invaded.

So it is perfectly possible that the Polish saw the Lithuanians as scum, who took advantage of the war to get the disputed region back, "for free". To me it seems the above very interesting story does not reject this possibility.