Nope, Finland did not set a siege against Leningrad, and I am generally pretty suspicious about people who later have wanted to change the history to look like Finns had actually participated in the siege. The whole thing is pretty much a new invention. I need to write this in English because of the public and for the easier reference possibility too.
At youtube, there is a channel called pronssisoturi, which mostly consists of videos of some recent activity of Johan Bäckman and those neo-Stalinist people, who hardly ever are taken seriously, deservedly too. Among the videos there was a now removed video of a MTV3 newsreport showing the nashi-youth decorating the grave of Marshall Mannerheim with flowers to glorify the fact that Mannerheim had not attacked Leningrad during the Second World War. And it is no wonder that the video was taken away right after I had commented it with something like "it is great that the Russians with their gesture want to overthrow the myth only the goofiest non-historians have wanted to maintain".
Yes, Marshall Mannerheim had declared, that if Finland will ever attack Leningrad, he will not be conducting such an operation. Mannerheim had wanted to liberate the city of Peter the Great during the Russian Civil War, but that time there was no chance to start the offensive since the White forces were too weak. History also shows that Mannerheim did stand behind his words. So did his army.
The people who want that Finland had participated in the siege of Leningrad include Field Marshall Jodl, Russian historian Nikolai Baryshnikov, and few Finnish authors like Paavo Rintala. Jodl was said "no", which worsened the relations with wartime Finland and Germany; Baryshnikov has argued that it was only a convention not to talk about it during the Cold War years because the Finno-Soviet relations had to remain calm; and about these left-nutty authors there is hardly other thing to say that they have no any weight on words as historians and they can be just ignored. Baryshnikov's argument is inconsequential too with all the Russian post war demands and the general arrogance they showed, or was it only that the big bad wolf was so afraid of the porkies that it had to bow down?
The two Soviet Winter Wars
The usual Soviet excuse for the war of 1939-40 was that "Soviet Union needed terrain to defend against the upcoming German attack". This was however not the original title of the show, for originally the Soviet Union had started the war to "liberate the Finnish worker from the yoke of the White Bandit". This upcoming German enemy had agreed it, that Finland should be occupied by the Soviet Union, because the Finnish defense forces were estimated to be too weak to repel the Soviet onslaugh. The secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact are no secret history any longer: Finnish destiny was determined to be exactly the same as those of the Baltic states. This was the first of the two Soviet Winter Wars.
We can say that the first Winter War was lost by the Soviets, because of the Finnish resiliency. The Finnish worker had determined to fight with the White Bandit. In a recently discovered Wikileaks document Putin is explaining Halonen that the Winter War was a mistake by Stalin. Defense of Leningrad was hardly behind the whole event. Also, to defend Leningrad you have had to conquer the whole Finland, not just the few border hamlets. Soviets made Peace with the Finns because Finns had started to receive support from all over the world, and Stalin did not want to get in trouble with likes Britain, France, Italy, Hungary, the United States. Soviets however won the second Winter War, but only partially: Finns agreed to cede Viipuri but managed to hold it out too against the Soviet offensive.
A word about Axis and Allies: when the world was about to be set up on fire, the alliances at start were quite different to those of the alliances in the end. Britain and France were allies, and with France there was a defensive agreement with Poland, Czecholovakia (out), and the Benelux countries. Other allies were Germany and the Soviet Union who were against everybody else. Everybody else was completely neutral, and mostly because everyone disliked both Communism and Nazism.
The Nazi Germany had not supported Finland during the Winter War in any way: and why it should have? It was only the result of the Winter War that lead Hitler to re-estimate its potential allies and enemies. Finns were non-Aryans, and save for the Swedish speaking Finns, allegedly 'mongoloid', and that means not above Russians in general.
About the time when the Operation Barbarossa began, Finns found themselves at war with the Soviet Union. There was no need for the declaration of war, because the Soviets had bombed Finnish cities first. Soviets had already been attacked by German aircraft, which they believed were using bases in Finland, and this was not untrue. Regardless of this, the provocation goes back to the Soviets, who had many times violated the Peace agreement they had written with Finns in 1940. We might also examine the Finno-Soviet borderlines of 1940 more closely.
Soviet Union was planning to attack Finland again when a proper occasion would arise. Therefore the naval and army base at Hanko was equipped with offensive units, like an armoured train, plus an airbase with aircraft, and more than a division of well-trained troops. Finns responded with building the Harparskog-defensive line against the fortress of Hanko. When the Peace agreement was written in 1944, the Soviets didn't want Hanko any longer because the weakness of the place had been revealed, and therefore they wanted Porkkala. This base was not a long way from Helsinki, their ultimate target. Elsewhere, if Germans had defeated the Royal Airforce in 1940 and started the Operation Sea Lion against the Britain, Soviets had had an excellent chance to attack westwards.
Soviets needed terrain to defend against... fairly speaking Finns needed too! Therefore in 1941 Finns advanced into Syväri, and Povenets to gain hold at the Maaselkä-isthmus. Advance into Povenets caused a declaration of war from Great Britain against Finland, which however lead to no any combat to occur between Finns and Brits. Finns stopped their offense in order not to annoy the Western Allies, who were at the time providing supplies for the Soviet Union, and the most important depot was located at Sorokka, within a reach of Finnish hands. It was also entirely because of the Western relations why Finns never continued the attack at Maaselkä.
Finnish operations against Leningrad
- Finns stopped their advance at the Karelian isthmus too, at the lots they had already been in 1939, advancing no further, except for silencing the two fortresses to the east when 'straightening' the defensive line. This action however couldn't have added to the overall threat against Leningrad. Finns, in fact, still remained quite far away from the city. The Karelian isthmus in 1941 contained no German troops or equipment. Also there are no records of Finns issuing an artillery bombardment or air attack towards the city. For what reason too, if I may ask? Mannerheim had declared that he would not attack Leningrad, he had also strictly decreed that the airforce may not select Leningrad or Kronshtad as their targets.
- At Syväri, the German 163rd Infantry Division had taken part in the Finnish offensive. The division didn't generally perform well, but it took part on an attack towards Tihvinä, across the Syväri river, but the German division couldn't hold it against Soviet counterattack and the German troops were drawn back. Finns didn't care what these Germans do.
- Finns captured the power station at Syväri too, cutting off most of the electricity at Leningrad. This still needs not to be an action directed against Leningrad primarily, because the operation still keeps in accordance with the plan to reach for the more easily defensible terrain.
- Finns let a German/Italian flotilla to use their bases at Ladoga in an attack towards Soviet base at the Lake. Soviets were equally using their base against Finnish bases. In a war you may shoot back, and you don't mind if someone is doing that for you.
- Finns captured Suursaari Island, thus blocking the Baltic Navy from operating at the Gulf of Finland. Finns had controlled Suursaari before the war, and also had controlled Tytärsaari, Seiskari and Lavansaari. Suursaari had been used as a Soviet base in an attack against Kotka during the Winter War. The operation against Suursaari had a defensive purpose as well. And what generally not to do to block out the enemy navy?
- Finns bombed the airfields around Leningrad during the spring of 1944, and that was because the airfields had been used by Soviet bombers who had bombed Helsinki.
And this is how the recorded history shows it: call this a siege then remind yourself what the Soviets had had against the Finns, if not a genocide or deportation, then at least an imposement of a Soviet rule to the land. Fighting against Soviets brought the least casualties for the Finns, and there exists not such a thing like a mandatory altruistic suicide. Soviets, under their rule of Stalin brought the calamity on themselves, and on Leningrad too. Didn't Stalin also prohibit the evacuation of the civilians from the city, thus adding to the tragedy? Finns anyway managed twice to evacuate the Karelians, had been worth trying for Stalin too. But no, I guess.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti