The Finnish war: a hard victory or a shameful defeat?


In the Finnish War, Soviet gunners also used 152 mm howitzers of the 1909 model, modernized in 1930. Photo: Pavel Troshkin


"Winter war" 1939-1940 годов между СССР и Финляндией является воистину излюбленной темой как некоторых западных псевдоисториков, так и их усердных подпевал из лагеря отечественных либералов. Ну, как же – с одной стороны, вроде бы «сталинская агрессия», а с другой едва ли не «проигранная» кампания, в которой Красная армия, по мнению всей этой малопочтенной публики, «опозорилась». Ну, вопрос насчет «агрессии», которой никогда не было, я самым подробным образом разобрал в предыдущей статье на эту тему, вызвавшей кое у кого вполне ожидаемую истерику... Поговорим же теперь о том, насколько реально «неудачными» были действия РККА во время тех далеких событий и насколько «славно» сражались их противники. Да, именно так – во множественном числе, поскольку в конфликте нашим воинам противостояла далеко не только финская армия. И это – только один из мифов, который нам предстоит здесь развеять...

Required entry


We begin, as usual, with a retrospective of that particular historical moment, when, in fact, the “winter war” broke out, even the briefest. First of all, it was not only the first war of the Red Army, in which it had the armed forces of the European state as its adversary, but also in general the first hostilities that our troops waged after their formation as a regular army was actually completed. The previous “battles and campaigns”, the most striking example of which can be, to put it mildly, the extremely unsuccessful Polish campaign of 1919-1921, were, in fact, a continuation of the Civil War in Russia. And the Red Army participated in them, which Leon Trotsky created almost out of nothing, overflowing with his proteges and followers. She "pulled" the status of serious regular troops, in truth, with an extremely big stretch. There was more enthusiasm and revolutionary impulse there than real combat training and, even more so, systematic and deep knowledge of military affairs. Hence the results. By the end of 1939, in the Red Army, almost painfully, but nevertheless, absolutely necessary personnel "cleansings" were completely completed, which considerably thinned out the ranks of adherents of the "world revolution". Nevertheless, the old approaches, which were based on the ideas of Trotsky, were extremely tenacious. For those who do not quite understand what is at stake, I recommend that you re-read in the original the “ingenious” works of Tukhachevsky, repeatedly mourned by our demshiz. This is precisely the quintessence of Trotskyism, turned into a bastard "military doctrine."

It was based on the insidious idea that, when the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army was approaching, bringing "liberation by the oppressed," all peoples "enslaved by world capital" would immediately and enthusiastically rush towards her in a single impulse, sweeping away their own oppressors. The soldiers of the "bourgeois armies" immediately drop ground rifles, or even turn them against their own commanders, and the proletarians and peasants rise, destroying the rear lines and supply lines of enemy troops. The Red Army, in fact, will not have to strain especially - well, except that, taking armfuls of flowers and bread and salt from the freed "class brothers" and collecting rich trophies ... Do you think I'm exaggerating or even distorting the essence? Nothing like this. Well, maybe a little exaggerate. It was on the basis of such nonsense that the same Tukhachevsky, for example, defended the idea of ​​creating exceptionally light tanks that would sweep along the European freeways, "bringing freedom to the proletarians." To hell with average or, especially, heavy "armor" of the army, which will not have to engage in serious battles ?! This is just one example, and there were many. The worst thing is that the troops, first of all, their commanding staff, for years aimed not at heavy and fierce battles, but at a triumphant "liberation" procession around the world under red flags ... By the beginning of the "winter war" this nonsense from the Red Army, mainly increased (along with its main carriers), however, there were certain relapses. Perhaps, precisely because of this, the campaign against the Finns was planned to be carried out "with little blood and in the shortest possible time." It didn’t work, alas ...

Ice and flame test


Yes, it must be admitted - the Red Army was not ready for the war that was originally imposed on it by the Finns. The main reason, as usually happens in such situations, is the underestimation of the enemy and the conditions in which it will be necessary to conduct hostilities. The Mannerheim Line was expected to be taken off the fly - it did not work. They did not take into account that the vast majority of Finns in the past were excellent hunters - and received a sniper war, which they lost at the first stage. They did not provide for Finnish tactics of action by small mobile sabotage and partisan groups. Cracking frost and deep snow awaiting the army were not appreciated correctly ... In a word, there were plenty of mistakes and miscalculations. But! Only an absolutely dishonest person can argue that the Red Army in the process of the “winter war” did not show the ability to quickly draw conclusions from its own failures, learn and rebuild literally on the battlefield in order to then beat the enemy, no matter what deadly surprises he presents. The fighting against Finland has become brutal, bloody for our armed forces, but, as life has shown, an absolutely necessary school of military skill. After all, we still cracked the vaunted “Mannerheim Line”, unlike the Germans, who had to circumvent a completely similar “Maginot Line” in France with a flank maneuver through the territory of Belgium. Yes, the Wehrmacht also made two breakthroughs of this fortified area “head-on”, but, I recall, in the summer of 1940, when the French who were sitting there were completely demoralized and disorganized by the surrender of Paris. Our troops broke through the defenses of the Finns, who stood, as they say, to the last.


Soviet machine gunners in position. Photo: Pavel Troshkin

The same "Molotov cocktails", the idea of ​​which the Red Army "gave" the Finnish warriors, was subsequently burned the darkness of Nazi tanks. And our snipers during the Great Patriotic War were a hundred goals higher and more productive than the shooters of all other warring parties. German in the first place. By the way, a considerable number among them were the sons of the “indigenous peoples of the North” - also former hunters who were used to beating a squirrel in the eye almost from childhood. Conclusions were made, lessons learned. And in the end, how can one talk about the "defeat" of the USSR in this war, if, in fact, the capitulation was signed, did the Finnish side still have to ?! The USSR received absolutely everything that it wanted, and even more - both the border, which was fairly pushed away from Leningrad, and the opportunity to strengthen its military presence in the Baltic, and much more. And the greedy and slow-witted Finns, who had been breaking out for a long time and tastefully when they were asked to solve the matter in peace, grabbed a vigorous shish accordingly. And even without oil - they did not get any return territorial acquisitions offered to them earlier, and even monetary compensations for the lands and water lost so stupidly. One of the Finnish diplomats, I remember, squealed to our People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs that “at least Peter the Great paid during it”, which clever Molotov very venomously advised the questioner to go directly to Tsar Peter for money. Well, and the fact that we were “asked” from the League of Nations as a result ... Yes, this tinsel, completely incapable and thoroughly hypocritical international “sharashka” gave much to someone in that era of total troops, even less authoritative than the current UN, capable of exclusively "pouting"? Saved someone? Stopped at least one war? There was little loss, in truth.

The Great Patriotic War in 1940?


As I already wrote in the previous article devoted to the “winter war”, undertaking to conduct its biased analysis, gentlemen, the anti-advisers are embarking on their usual cheap cheating. Like, the "big and scary" USSR barely managed to master the "small but proud" Finland. At the same time, the fact that the whole Western world acted on the side of Helsinki, which the Soviet Union, as usual, opposed in complete solitude, was somehow completely imperceptibly discarded. At least 12 thousand “foreign volunteers” who fought against us in that conflict, not only the Scandinavians, but also the Hungarians and the British with the Americans, where do you order? One eight-thousandth Swedish Corps was worth it! Dozens of combat vehicles for aviation, both fighters and bombers, from France and Britain, dozens of aircraft from Sweden, Italy and even South Africa, tanks, hundreds of artillery pieces and machine guns, hundreds of tons of ammunition - from ammunition to mines and aerial bombs. Such "trifles" as small arms, grenades, ammunition flowed to Finland from all over the world. We fought exclusively on our own. However, military supplies and thousands of legionnaires are nonsense. Too many historians, whose opinion I personally agree unconditionally, believe that war would not have happened at all if it had not been for the firm conviction of the Helsinki who had gone too far in Paris and London to enter it on the Finnish side, as they say, “in the strength” . That is, they will throw their regular troops against the USSR. The most interesting thing is that neither the French nor the British, not at all embarrassed, admit: there were such plans. Even as there were!

Изложенные ниже факты – нож острый для тех «альтернативно одаренных» господ, которые по сей день пытаются с пеной у рта доказывать, что Британия и Франция ни в коем случае и ни за что не могли бы оказаться в одном строю с Гитлером в войне против нашей страны. В 1940 году все как раз обстояло с точностью до наоборот! Напомню: Третий рейх уже расколошматил к чертям собачьим Польшу, англичане и французы с немцами и их союзниками вроде как «воюют»... И тем не менее, в Париже и Лондоне носятся с планами бомбовых ударов по советским нефтепромыслам в Баку, переброски в Финляндию войск, которые удастся собрать отсиживавшемуся в Лондоне «польскому правительству в изгнании» и тому подобными вещами. Британский Департамент Севера вовсю прорабатывал варианты «союзнической» высадки в Норвегии с последующей атакой на СССР. Самое замечательное, что вполне всерьез обсуждались и согласовывались все эти сценарии вплоть до весны 1940 года, когда убедительная победа РККА и начавшиеся мирные переговоры с Хельсинки лишили наших будущих «союзников» такого замечательного повода для нападения. Согласно донесениям, поступавших в Москву от советских дипломатов, окончательно осознавшие в 1940 году, с кем они, на свою голову, связались, англичане и французы были готовы примириться с Гитлером и Муссолини, если те немедленно повернут свои войска на Восток, и даже стать их союзниками. Наши солдаты, в те дни отчаянно штурмовавшие «линию Маннергейма», даже не подозревали, насколько высоки ставки в этой войне. Своими жизнями они купили нашей стране еще один год, который был так необходим для подготовки к Великой Отечественной...


A column of Soviet soldiers enters Vyborg. Photo: Pavel Troshkin


Legends and myths of the "winter war"


The war with Finland over time has grown into a huge number of legends and outright lies, which our liberal public is picking up with indescribable enthusiasm today, without worrying about even a minimal verification of the allegedly “historical” facts. The main, perhaps, symbol of all this rubbish can be the name of the Finn Simo Häyühä, whom some "experts" call almost "the greatest sniper of all time." Yes, the guy most likely was really good. However, given that even his hottest fans admit that the number of Soviet soldiers and officers allegedly killed by him was compiled solely “from the words of Simo himself or with the confirmation of his comrades,” then his battle score of more than 44 enemies destroyed began to cause extremely serious doubt. Not because I feel like it, but because it was precisely the Finns who during that war were repeatedly caught in a lie and a huge overstatement of enemy losses. For example, the “battle at Suomussalmi”, inflated to heaven by Helsinki’s propaganda, in which, according to the Finns, the 44th RKKA Rifle Division was almost completely destroyed, in fact, it was definitely our defeat. However, this unit lost a thousand people dead, several more were considered missing. But not the whole payroll! This, however, did not save the commanders of the 15th SD from execution ... I note - as indicated in serious sources, "before the formation of the division." Therefore, it was before whom! It is understandable - even the loss of two or three thousand people for the division, numbering XNUMX thousand in their ranks, was not “total destruction”.

И примерно так – практически во всем, что касается «зимней войны». Те, кто пытаются выставить ее нашим «разгромом» и «позором», ссылаются поголовно если не непосредственно на финские, то на западные источники. Мол, советские командиры «тупо гнали солдат на убой» в отличие от хитроумных финнов, воевавших «не числом, а умением». Да, как же... Что тогда сказать об одном из «выдающихся» военачальников Финляндии Харольде Эквисте, затеявшем контратаковать застрявшие на Карельском перешейке советские части, чтобы потом «гнать» их чуть ли не до Ленинграда? Только за один день поднятые по его приказу в атаку части 2-го армейского корпуса, лезшие на наши позиции без всякой огневой поддержки, потеряли полторы тысячи человек. Сами же финны впоследствии назвали это контрнаступление «попыткой пробить головой стену»... Знаменитые финские «снайпера-кукушки»? Еще один миф! Позиции на деревьях враг действительно занимал нередко – вот только в 99 случаях из 100 сидели там никакие не стрелки, а корректировщики артиллерийского огня. «Замечательные» пистолеты-пулеметы «Суоми», из которых финны «сотнями крошили советских солдат», после чего высшее руководство страны и армии наконец-то начало массовое производство ППД и ППШ, без которых нас, поголовно вооруженные МР-38 и МР-40 немцы разгромили бы в пух и прах? Ну, это вообще иначе, как сущеглупым бредом, назвать невозможно. Тут вообще все вранье. И у немцев «трещоток» было далеко не столько, сколько показывают в иных дурных фильмах «про войну», и столь большой роли в боевых действиях, как кому-то кажется, они не играли. Главное же – к 1940 году Красная армия не уделяла столь уж большого внимания пистолетам-пулеметам в силу того, что начинала перевооружаться (одной из первых в мире!) на автоматические винтовки. Впрочем, это тема уже для совсем другого разговора...

No matter how much someone would like to present the events of the “winter war” in a light that is unfavorable for our country and its army, with a detailed and thoughtful consideration of them, the picture is completely different. Yes, there were mistakes, there were extremely painful lesions. However, in the end it was we who won, and, as you know, the winners are not judged. The invaluable experience of those battles was fully used during the Great Patriotic War, which we also won. In contrast, by the way, from the Finns who got on the side of the Nazis ... The heroes of the one called by the poet of the “irreplaceable” war are worthy of our memory and respect, among other things, also because they forged the great Victory of 1945 with their military labor.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

26 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Arkharov Offline
    Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 21 December 2019 09: 44
    -1
    • 4
    • 5
    This article, as usual, the author completely ignores common sense and puts everything upside down. I look, in general the company is trying to pull at least some justification and justification for this very shameful spot in history. True, it doesn’t work out very well. Touching is the attempt to somehow drag here Trotsky, who has not been in the Union for 10 years and has long been ruled by the best manager of all time.
    The following pearls are especially noteworthy for the author:

    And the greedy and slow-witted Finns, before this breaking out for a long time and with taste, when they were asked to solve the matter by the world, respectively, grabbed a vigorous shish.

    - I didn’t understand, did the Finns lay claim to some Soviet territory, not wanting to solve the matter peacefully and attacked subsequently?

    At the same time, the fact that the whole Western world acted on the side of Helsinki, which the Soviet Union, as usual, opposed in complete solitude, was somehow completely imperceptibly discarded. At least 12 thousand “foreign volunteers” who fought against us in that conflict, not only the Scandinavians, but also the Hungarians and the British with the Americans, where do you order?

    - 12 тысяч добровольцев, пришедших на помощь маленькой стране, против нескольких сотен тысяч у напавшей на нее огромной страны? И это противостояние всего "агрессивного Западного мира" с одиноким и миролюбивым СССР?
    And the puppet "government" Kuusinen, already sitting on the suitcases? And what about the “Finnish corps”, for which at least some people similar to the Finns gathered all over the country? This is all for what, a little “push the border"? Can the author answer this?
    1. plabu Offline
      plabu 21 December 2019 11: 59
      0
      • 4
      • 4
      I didn’t have a single gram of doubts that your comment will be after this article - and the rest of the secessionists and those who believe that the USSR fought exclusively aggressive wars will also catch up, I have no doubt about that ...
      As for Trotsky - well, you and your colleagues apparently did not meet the formula “cadres decide everything”, in vain, take an interest, maybe after that something will become clear to you, but personally, I doubt it, you have a different task ...
      And all the rest of your mantras - "... completely ignores common sense ..."," ...puts everything upside down... "- it’s not a secret for a long time that your views on this topic are far from the objective picture of those events - well, you’re“ mentioning about ”the 12 thousand volunteers who came to the aid of a small country, against several hundred thousand from a huge country that attacked it, you “modestly” forget “to write about the fact that the Finnish Armed Forces were, according to the most conservative estimates, more than 250 thousand, why should you write about it, right? Something like that from you and your colleagues is no longer surprising .. . hi
      1. Arkharov Offline
        Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 21 December 2019 12: 36
        -1
        • 4
        • 5
        Stop. Everything is strictly according to the author, namely for help "of the whole Western world", as 12000 (!!!?) Volunteers in the fight against lonely USSR. The author primitively tried to "sculpt" about the war not just with Finland, but with almost "the whole Western world." You yourself prove that these volunteers were a drop in the bucket. And these were volunteers !!! So, do not distort !!!
        1. plabu Offline
          plabu 21 December 2019 14: 25
          0
          • 3
          • 3
          Well, you (all) consider it possible to write more than once that in the Donbass only Buryat-tankers fought and are fighting and there is nobody else there, and the analogy was almost drawn - only for some reason you missed those places in the article where the author wrote about that they studied, and quickly enough, and changed, also quite smartly ...
          Without this experience, the next war would be much more difficult
          and, by the way, about weapons, ammunition and equipment you did NOT write at all either, what would it be?
          1. Arkharov Offline
            Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 21 December 2019 15: 40
            -2
            • 3
            • 5
            By your analogy with the volunteers: why did they trample onto Soviet territory?
            Well, the main question is, how can one evaluate this whole phenomenon? It, in principle, has long been appreciated, but now I look, there is a clumsy attempt to re-evaluate it. You are probably right about the experience, but was it not too expensive to get, was it applied correctly, and was it worth it all to start?
            1. plabu Offline
              plabu 21 December 2019 20: 10
              +1
              • 2
              • 1
              I would not have this experience - not the fact that in 1941 winter would have played for us - in my opinion.
              Yes, and about "venturing" - if it weren’t, it’s not a fact that Peter would have been kept, but this is already from the series “if there were ...”
              And about the fact that ALREADY it is estimated - I agree here, but here we have different ratings, this is no longer a secret ...
              And again, the question is - by whom is it estimated? And then there are already opinions that if it weren’t for LL, we would have lost the war, at all, and the fact that some of the representatives of this point of view do not know arithmetic, which became clear after the publication) - it’s kind of unimportant. bully
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 21 December 2019 17: 49
    0
    • 0
    • 0

    Stalin suggested that France and England make peace with Germany, and such a world is a direct path to conspiracy against the USSR. Or Stalin did not fear collusion in 1939, did not believe in his possibility.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  4. Oleg Rambover Offline
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 21 December 2019 18: 46
    0
    • 4
    • 4
    Cute. I’m curious if the author himself doesn’t know the story or writes in the expectation that his readers are not only not interested in this subject, but also basically skipped history in school?
    I already wrote to the previous article that the actions of the USSR fall under the definition of aggression in the legal sense.
    In 1933, at the initiative of the USSR, a convention was adopted on the definition of aggression.

    Article II
    In accordance with this, it will be recognized as an attacker in an international conflict, without prejudice to the agreements in force between the parties to the conflict, the state that first performs one of the following actions:
    1. The declaration of war to another state;
    2. The invasion of their armed forces, at least without declaring war, on the territory of another state;
    Article III
    No consideration of a political, military, economic or other order may serve as an excuse or excuse for the aggression provided for in article II.

    That is, the Winter War is certainly an aggression of the USSR. And not a single fan of the cult of the witnesses Joseph could refute this.
    Regarding the evil Tukhachevsky, from the grave of the harmful Red Army, it's cool. He promoted the theory of deep operations to the Red Army, according to the principles of this theory the Vistula-Oder operation was carried out and the whole company in the Far East at 45, that is, he continued to harm for a long time.
    As for the tanks ... In the Wehrmacht, at 41 there were no heavy tanks, the T-4 was a medium tank, but had no armor-piercing shells and there were a couple of hundred of them. The main tank was the T-3 and it could be called medium with a big stretch. However, they were stopped only near Moscow.

    The Red Army was assigned specific tasks:
    - access to the Norwegian border;
    - access to the Swedish border;
    - access to the Gulf of Bothnia;
    - bypassing Lake Ladoga from the north to the rear of the Mannerheim Line;
    - a breakthrough of the Mannerheim line and access to Helsinki.
    Of these tasks, only a breakthrough of the Mannerheim line was realized, and then after 2.5 months, although 2 weeks were allotted for this.
    The price paid is enormous, I think the losses of the Red Army were more than they now live in the conquered territories.
    The prestige of the Red Army, this war greatly shook. Maybe July 22 would not have been if not for this war.
    1. plabu Offline
      plabu 21 December 2019 20: 18
      +2
      • 3
      • 1
      These tasks were set for what? And what would happen if all this did not take place, so goals are much more important. Well, the fact that aggression - so what? Examples in those days are higher than the roof, but somehow it doesn’t excite anyone to the extent that the USSR is here ...- knowing a lot of what has already happened, it’s much easier to judge and row, then it looked a bit different )
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 23 December 2019 00: 00
        -1
        • 0
        • 1
        Quote: 321
        These tasks were set for what?

        I do not really understand what you mean.
        And what were the goals? You want to say that the goals are one thing, and the tasks for the Red Army are not connected with them in any way? In order to push the border near Leningrad of the Red Army, it was necessary to take the city of Tornio? Or would you like to walk through Leninist places?
        It was declared to push the border from Leningrad to ensure its security. And how, provided? Finns by the end of August 41 were on the old border.
        Judging by the negotiations between Molotov and Hitler in November 40, the Soviet leadership was not satisfied with the goals achieved. And in the 40th, a directive was adopted with a new war plan (the tasks were the same except for the Mannerheim line) against Finland.

        Quote: 321
        Well, the fact that aggression - so what?

        Nothing, just the author of the article rubs that this is not aggression, but this is a lie. And lying is not good.
        1. plabu Offline
          plabu 23 December 2019 07: 08
          +1
          • 1
          • 0
          Quote: Oleg Rambover
          ... And what were the goals? You want to say that the goals are one thing, and the tasks for the Red Army are not connected with them in any way? In order to push the border near Leningrad, the Red Army had to take the city of Tornio? Or would you like to walk through Leninist places? ...

          The goals are to push the border away from St. Petersburg, but have the tasks already been set to fulfill the goal, and was there an objective to join Tornio? Access to the border and accession is different, in my opinion.

          Quote: Oleg Rambover
          ... It was declared to push the border from Leningrad to ensure its security. And how, provided? Finns by the end of August 41 were on the old border ...

          Is there such a thing - proof of the opposite - suppose that there was NOT a war at all, and what would happen in June 1941? Is Leningrad practically under fire even of artillery, although long-range - is this, in your opinion, better? I have ANOTHER opinion on this matter ...

          Quote: Oleg Rambover
          ... Judging by the negotiations between Molotov and Hitler, in November 40 the Soviet leadership was dissatisfied with the goals achieved. And in the 40th, a directive was adopted with a new war plan (the tasks were the same except for the Mannerheim line) against Finland ...

          If you start to consider ALL such directives, the calculator will break, but what happened (or even tried to be implemented - this is a completely different issue, and the quantity is different).

          Quote: Oleg Rambover
          ...
          Quote: 321
          Well, the fact that aggression - so what?

          Nothing, just the author of the article rubs that this is not aggression, but this is a lie. And lying is not good.

          I did not get the impression that the "author rubs", but this is my opinion ...
          And about the aggression I already wrote that very, very many people were doing it then.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 24 December 2019 02: 20
            -1
            • 0
            • 1
            Quote: 321
            The goals are to push the border away from St. Petersburg, but have the tasks already been set to fulfill the goal, and was there an objective to join Tornio? Access to the border and accession is different, in my opinion.

            That is, in order to push the border near Leningrad, it is necessary to go through battles through the whole of Finland and capture the city on the border with Sweden, almost 1000 km from the city of Lenin? Do you really believe that? Judging by the fate of eastern Poland, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Baltic states, this is one and the same thing.

            Quote: 321
            Is there such a thing - proof of the opposite - suppose that there was NOT a war at all, and what would happen in June 1941? Is Leningrad practically under fire even of artillery, although long-range - is this, in your opinion, better? I have ANOTHER opinion on this matter ...

            There is no need for any evidence from the contrary. The Finns were on the old border at the end of August 41 and stood there for three years. So to imagine what would have happened if it hadn’t been necessary, that’s how it all happened in reality. And they didn’t shell the city, not because they were so humane, but because they didn’t have long-range artillery. And I ask again, well, have the city been secured?

            Quote: 321
            If you start to consider ALL such directives, the calculator will break, but what happened (or even tried to be implemented - this is a completely different issue, and the quantity is different).

            You exaggerate the aggressiveness of the USSR. Do not believe it, but there are not many such directives. I at least read only 3.
            Read, interesting. Especially Hitler’s conversation with Molotov.

            https://terijoki.spb.ru/books/vn_archive_docs_1939-1940.pdf

            Quote: 321
            I did not get the impression that the "author rubs", but this is my opinion ...
            And about the aggression I already wrote that very, very many people were doing it then.

            The author wrote:

            Well, the question about “aggression”, which has never happened, I dealt with in the most detailed manner in a previous article on this subject.

            It is a lie that there was no “aggression."
            That is, you do not see anything that Germany committed an act of aggression against the USSR?
            1. plabu Offline
              plabu 24 December 2019 07: 15
              0
              • 0
              • 0
              Quote: Oleg Rambover
              Quote: 321
              The goals are to push the border away from St. Petersburg, but have the tasks already been set to fulfill the goal, and was there an objective to join Tornio? Access to the border and accession is different, in my opinion.

              То есть, чтобы отодвинуть границу под Ленинградом, надо пройти с боями сквозь всю Финляндию и захватить город на границы со Швецией в почти 1000 км от города Ленина? Вы реально в это верите? Судя по судьбе восточной Польши, Бессарабии, Северной Буковины и Прибалтики это одна и та же вещь…

              "... trouble, since the cake starts to tread the boots ..." - something like this here - you are NOT a military man, it is almost noticeable to the naked eye, here is your incomprehension of the fact that different tasks are carried out differently, I wrote to you what the purpose was ...
              And do not give examples of the reverse? Well, when did they come in and later calmly left? Or you could go in at a time, but they didn’t even try ...

              Quote: Oleg Rambover
              ...
              Quote: 321
              Is there such a thing - proof of the opposite - suppose that there was NOT a war at all, and what would happen in June 1941? Is Leningrad practically under fire even of artillery, although long-range - is this, in your opinion, better? I have ANOTHER opinion on this matter ...

              Тут не надо никакого доказательства от противного. Финны были на старой границе уже в конце августа 41 и простояли там три года. Так что представлять, что бы было, если бы, не надо, так все так и произошло в реальности. А не обстреливали они город не потому что они такие гуманные, а потому что у них не было дальнобойной артиллерии. И я еще раз спрашиваю, ну что, обезопасили город?...

              How many times you can repeat the same thing - unlike you, and not just you, I studied archival documents, and NOT only in the Soviet archives, so it’s not worth talking about the lack of artillery and the humanity of the Finns, this problem was solved quite simply ...
              And yes, they made it safe - this is my opinion.

              Quote: Oleg Rambover
              ... You exaggerate the aggressiveness of the USSR. Do not believe it, but there are not many such directives. At least I read only 3 ...

              What you read does NOT mean at all that these are all documents of this type, there are more of them, but taking into account the fact that when I was doing this, oh, there were a lot of grooved ones, but now I’m just not interested in this subject, and in what form they are, I just was NOT interested, and so time is chronically lacking ...

              Quote: Oleg Rambover
              ... The author wrote:
              Well, the question about “aggression”, which has never happened, I dealt with in the most detailed manner in a previous article on this subject.

              It is a lie that there was no “aggression."
              That is, you do not see anything that Germany committed an act of aggression against the USSR?

              Did not try your thoughts DO NOT try to pass off as mine? Try it, it should work out.
              And as for the "aggression" for the last time - the Germans, in contrast to the USSR, in fact, did NOT offer an exchange, moreover at times, so compare - well, at least ...
              And I already expressed my opinion, I don’t see any reason to repeat myself ...
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 25 December 2019 00: 57
                -1
                • 0
                • 1
                Quote: 321
                "... trouble, since the cake starts to tread the boots ..." - something like this here - you are NOT a military man, it is almost noticeable to the naked eye, here is your incomprehension of the fact that different tasks are carried out differently, I wrote to you what the purpose was ...
                And do not give examples of the reverse? Well, when did they come in and later calmly left? Or you could go in at a time, but they didn’t even try ...

                Well, share your innermost military knowledge, for which the troops need to go to Helsinki 350 km from Leningrad, if the goal is to push the border 50 km away.
                Something you also do not pull on the military, your answers are somehow not clear, not military. You cannot even formulate the goal correctly.
                А я должен какие-то примеры приводить? Собственно, я их и не знаю, по крайней мере касательно стран, упомянутых в секретном протоколе к пакту Молотова-Риббентропа.

                Quote: 321
                And yes, they made it safe - this is my opinion.

                Your opinion without conditionally is very interesting, but what is this secure. Usually their opinion is confirmed by some sort of argument. The Finns stood at the end of August 41 in the same place as 39. What changed the winter war?

                Quote: 321
                What you read does NOT mean at all that these are all documents of this type, there are more of them, but taking into account the fact that when I was doing this, oh, there were a lot of grooved ones, but now I’m just not interested in this subject, and in what form they are, I just was NOT interested, and so time is chronically lacking ...

                Хорошо, сколько было директив НКО СССР с планами нападения на соседние страны?
                What did Molotov discuss with Hitler in the November 40th?

                Quote: 321
                Did not try your thoughts DO NOT try to pass off as mine? Try it, it should work out.
                And as for the "aggression" for the last time - the Germans, in contrast to the USSR, in fact, did NOT offer an exchange, moreover at times, so compare - well, at least ...
                And I already expressed my opinion, I don’t see any reason to repeat myself ...

                So you agree that the statement that there was no aggression is a lie?
                Это что то новенькое. То есть бывает хорошая агрессия, а бывает не очень? То есть, если бы Гитлер предложил какой то обмен, то вы и проблем бы не видели? Если бы, как Сталин, предложили бы обменять один из самых развитых регионов на кусок тайги с медведями, то все нормально? Это смешно, как минимум. Детский сад какой-то.
                1. plabu Offline
                  plabu 25 December 2019 11: 07
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  Quote: Oleg Rambover
                  ... Well, share your innermost military knowledge, for which the troops need to go to Helsinki 350 km from Leningrad, if the goal is to push the border 50 km away.
                  Something you too do not pull on the military, your answers are somehow not clear, not military. You can’t even formulate the goal correctly ....

                  What other instructions from you will be? At present, information is a commodity, do you still need numbers and pages of archival files? hi
                  And as for me, “non-military” - you vanguard unsuccessfully, twenty calendar ones, preferential ones are not important in this case.
                  And I’m not to blame, at least for the fact that you don’t know how much about a series of discussions and debates you can’t read and, most importantly, understand what was written to you earlier - this is about goals ...

                  Quote: Oleg Rambover
                  ... And should I give any examples? Actually, I don’t know them, at least with regard to the countries mentioned in the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ...

                  How familiar this is - you write posts with a very one-sided bias, such as what the USSR was all aggressive and bad, but with knowledge - a gap, ah ah ah ... bully

                  Quote: Oleg Rambover
                  ... Your opinion, of course, is very interesting, but what is this security. Usually their opinion is confirmed by some sort of argument. The Finns stood at the end of August 41 in the same place as 39. What changed the winter war? ...

                  WAS NOT this war - the situation would be completely different and with artillery everything would be fine, so what, what is NOT Finnish, but when did you care about such subtleties, right?

                  Quote: Oleg Rambover
                  ... Well, how many directives did NPOs of the USSR have with plans to attack neighboring countries?
                  What did Molotov discuss with Hitler in the November 40th? ...

                  I already wrote above - I am not going to share information, at least prior to my publication, you have a desire to find out - the archives will help you, there you will find everything yourself.

                  Quote: Oleg Rambover
                  ... So you agree that the statement that there was no aggression is a lie? ....

                  We have to repeat again - you don’t need to give your thoughts for mine, but I ALREADY wrote what I think on this topic, re-read it again, you can and again - and so on until you understand the meaning of what you have already written.

                  Quote: Oleg Rambover
                  ... This is ridiculous, at least. Some kind of kindergarten.

                  Kindergarten is once again to write to you what is already written about ...
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 26 December 2019 01: 22
                    0
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    The goal was not to push the border, but to secure Leningrad. We have some kind of empty, uninteresting dispute. You can hardly understand. I always hope that with my interlocutor I will get not just a dispute, but a discussion. That is, a mutually respectful dialogue with arguable abstracts.
                    If you did not understand the irony in the previous comment, I will say directly, your opinion is not interesting to me, especially if you can not argue it. In our bickering, the only argument that you brought up was that I did not serve. No argument from the word at all.
                    Что за ересь про "информация-товар"? Напомню, это вы ответили на мой комментарий, а не я на ваш. И если оспариваете мои высказывания, потрудитесь делать это аргументированно. Иначе это превращается в бессмысленное словоблудие.
                    I suspect you are simply not in a position to argue with argument my position and defend your own.
                    1. plabu Offline
                      plabu 26 December 2019 10: 07
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      I ALREADY expressed my position, both repeatedly and about the arguments from you - except for your purely literary stubbornness on the definition of aggression, they, in fact, haven’t been received from you ...
                      And what you consider to be your arguments is nothing more than historical facts, only you interpret them solely in your favor:
                      - 1) определение агрессии,
                      - 2) исключение СССР
                      - 3) наличие планов СССР по "захвату" - это в вашем варианте.
                      In fact, they already wrote to you that in the article, that I, that everything is not so clear, but you either don’t notice it, or don’t perceive it, or something else unknown to me ...
                      As for the information-product - I already wrote to you, I can only repeat that BEFORE my publication, I’m not going to post any arguments, lists and conclusions anywhere, including here, in order to avoid the fact that one of the "colleagues" has it all it’s just “grabbing”, your attitude towards this doesn’t interest me too much, you just don’t know what is happening in this sandbox or can happen, but take risks even in such a small amount? Why do I need it?
                      And you can continue to write with persistence worthy of a lot of better use what kind of USSR was bad ...
                      Did I respond to your comment? Rather, I expressed MY OPINION, and those who read it all will obviously NOT harm to know that such "behavior" of the USSR was sufficiently motivated, and about comparison with Hitler, more precisely, an attack on the USSR - I ALREADY brought the differences, but book-eaters and especially persistent, like you, these differences do not take much, I even have assumptions why - because you (not you personally, all, "whistleblowers and scourges" of the USSR) have a completely different task, rather than trying to establish the truth in FULL VOLUME.
                      НЕ бывает, как правило, только черного или только белого - но вы почему-то стремитесь именно к этому. Впрочем, ваша мотивация меня не слишком занимает, это точно не мои проблемы...
                      1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 December 2019 01: 59
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Yes, at least a hundred and fifty times you repeat your position, and even write all of its cups locks (which is really bad), but without argument it is unconvincing and uninteresting.
                        So you brought three points in support of my position (I did not mention the League of Nations, okay), but why didn’t you give a single argument in support of your position?
                        And this is five points, of course! Bravo! Where just "nothing more than historical facts" against your whole word (not confirmed by anything). It is worthy to enter the annals.
                        Aggression was either there or not (as the respected author of the article claims). What is ambiguous here. If you see ambiguity here, take the trouble to explain. You do not criticize the author for saying that there was clearly no aggression.
                        Это ваши проблемы, что вы боитесь нечистоплотности своих коллег. И знаете, с трудом верится, что вы трудитесь над эпохальным историческим трудом, охватывающую все аспекты зимней войны, и вы смогли открыть новые факты, до сих пор неизвестные, в корне меняющие представления о тех событиях. Больше похоже на нелепую отмазку.

                        Quote: 321
                        And you can continue to write with persistence worthy of a lot of better use what kind of USSR was bad ...

                        Where did I write this? Will it not be difficult for you to quote? The author of the article very freely interprets the story, one accusation of Tukhachevsky of the failures of the winter war is worth it. I pointed out these shortcomings.

                        Quote: 321
                        Did I respond to your comment?

                        No, they didn’t answer.
                        I asked what Hitler and Molotov discussed in Berlin in November 1940? You just ignore it.
                        I ask how the moved border secured Leningrad, you are silent as partisans.
                        I ask why the Red Army was set to go to Helsinki, you say that I did not serve, I do not understand.
                        Everything else is verbiage.

                        You have self-confidence at the levels, if you think that "expressed YOUR OPINION" and "who reads all this, obviously DOES NOT hurt to find out" is your opinion.
                        No one argues that the USSR was motivated. Hitler was also motivated, conquered living space for the German people.
                        I can hardly believe that an adult really believes that aggression can be justified by a preliminary offer of exchange of territory.
                        The Polish campaign of the Red Army, too, did not offer aggression and exchange of territory.

                        Quote: 321
                        because you (not personally you, all, "whistleblowers and scourges" of the USSR) have a completely different task, and not an attempt to establish the truth in FULL VOLUME.

                        And what is the task? It’s not necessary about the truth, it seems to me you agree with the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Medinsky, who makes history a patriotic legend, and who dares to refer to historical facts and dispute the legend - uh ... bad people (I’m not sure that the expression of the Minister of Culture is acceptable on this resource).
                        Where do I divide everything into black and white? It also does not happen that the rulers of your country are always innocent lambs and all in white, and all the surrounding villains with insidious plans.
                      2. plabu Offline
                        plabu 30 December 2019 10: 37
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        Quote: Oleg Rambover
                        Yes, at least a hundred and fifty times you repeat your position, and even write all of its cups locks (which is really bad), but without argument it is unconvincing and uninteresting ....

                        Had my position been not at all interesting to you - you would haven’t tried to write to me how bad it is.
                        Everything has already been written to you a long time ago, but you continue and continue, I will modestly keep silent that a much larger “bad word” is the “literacy” of these your continuations, and it falls and falls more and more in each case, and in order to to draw conclusions that you are exactly trying to kick and slander once again that Russia, the USSR — what quotes, it’s enough to just go into your comments once, only yours, and read them once, though not all, there are a lot of pages, but at least the latter - and everything immediately becomes clear ...
                        Why, or for what purpose - but why do I need it? These are your and only your problems, especially since you are in this capacity here NOT at all alone ...

                        Quote: Oleg Rambover
                        ... The author of the article very freely interprets the story, one accusation of Tukhachevsky of the failures of the winter war is worth it. I pointed out these shortcomings ...

                        When you and not only you were embarrassed that Tukhachevsky was mentioned almost briefly, and as one of the reasons - “cadres decide everything,” you didn’t even hear about such a phrase, it seems, but here it is quite applicable.
                        And as yours, and not only yours, have almost fed up with the claim that I should justify and prove my opinion to you, and not only to you, from which fright should I at least give you something? hi
                        And I ALREADY wrote, but it’s more and more incomprehensible to you, well, it happens - so be it, at least you need to tell something nevertheless - during the implementation of military operations, tasks are set, this is about reaching the borders, in one of the sections of military science there is even such the term is the support team of the inaccessible reinforcements approach, well, there is a slightly different wording, but this is quite enough for you.

                        Quote: Oleg Rambover
                        ... I ask how the moved border secured Leningrad, you are silent, like partisans ....

                        How many times will you write that the moved border has deprived of the possibility of shelling?

                        Quote: Oleg Rambover
                        ... I hardly believe that an adult really believes that aggression can be justified by a preliminary offer of exchange of territory.
                        The Polish campaign of the Red Army, too, aggression and exchange of territory did not offer ...

                        If you, as an adult, are seriously comparing Hitler’s aggression and this war, what’s next seriously can i talk?
                        And about Poland - take the trouble to at least find out how many Poland, as a de facto state, ceased to exist, and what date what you call aggression began.
                        Didn’t you ask about the directives, how many of them and what about? I’m writing about this about this, the details are interesting - welcome to the thematic forums, if it turns out that you are aiming there then to find out, and NOT to comment in your current style - you will most likely not be taken there if the goals are different - you can do not even try, there is a filtering system, and moderation works very well.
                        And your mantras about ministers and about everything else in the same style are of little interest to me - you think quite stereotyped in this regard, and the fact that the same historical facts can be interpreted differently is your example, this is one of the options for you are still opening, and there are quite a few of these options ...
                        So that your, that is not only yours, attempts to present my country (COUNTRY, and not its rulers, as you wrote here) exclusively in black - well, you (everyone) will not succeed, you (everyone )’s caliber guys, not the one, and even with some things problems ...
                      3. Oleg Rambover Offline
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 31 December 2019 00: 47
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        OK. You are right, for my part it was arrogant to challenge you to a reasoned discussion. You don't seem capable of her. And I always hope for the best. All the best. Holiday greetings.
                      4. plabu Offline
                        plabu 31 December 2019 12: 43
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        Twenty-five again, and this is called ARGUMENTS again? bully
                        Точно с подобными вам разговаривать не о чем - хотите и дальше рассказывать, какой плохой был, есть и, видимо, будет, СССР - это ваш выбор, уже давно понятно, что установление истины in full you are not interested, but this is definitely not my problem ...
                        With NG.
  • steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 21 December 2019 20: 01
    +1
    • 3
    • 2
    And I want to say THANKS to the author for this article! And I don't give a damn what traitors call this war. The main thing, if not this victory, LENINGRAD would fall, which means that much more people would die. And I will be FOR aggression in Ukraine, if it saves a million lives of Russian people! Why the United States for the life of an American can level cities and countries with the earth, and Russia should think about how all blues will call saving people! And let it be 10 aggressions, if only there would be no war on our land !!!
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • vashtp Offline
    vashtp (Andrei) 22 December 2019 01: 34
    -1
    • 1
    • 2
    Quote: steel maker
    And I will be FOR aggression in Ukraine, if it saves a million lives of Russian people! ...
    And let it be 10 aggressions, if only there would be no war on our land !!!

    Very strange logic!
    And how does this differ from the logic of Hitler, who thought he was simply expanding the living space for the Germans, that is, doing good for the people of Germany at the expense of other nations?
  • Potapov Offline
    Potapov (Valery) 22 December 2019 09: 58
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    The goals of the war have been achieved - achieved. Conclusions are made - are made. What are you talking about...
    1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 22 December 2019 17: 59
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      Only in 1945.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Ilya Zaitsev Offline
    Ilya Zaitsev (Ilya Zaitsev) 15 January 2020 09: 09
    -3
    • 0
    • 3
    My ancestors, thank God, did not participate in that Finnish Patriotic War on the side of the obvious aggressor of the USSR.
    1. plabu Offline
      plabu 15 January 2020 10: 46
      +1
      • 1
      • 0
      Quote: Ilya Zaitsev
      My ancestors, thank God!, Did not participate in that Finnish Patriotic War on the side of the obvious aggressor of the USSR.

      How lucky the USSR was that such "human material" did NOT come close to it ...
      And your opinion - something has become a bit much for you lately - of militant "specialists" returning to us again and again. bully