Today 70 years ago the Russians attacked Finland.
And failed, thereby making possible the rise of the Emo Finnish Teenagers (TM).
Congrats, Finland, anyways.
I'll listen to Winter War - Total war by Impaled Nazarene to remember it.
:punk:
If I had my Talvisota DVD here, I'd watch it.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 30, 2009, 07:51:18 AM
If I had my Talvisota DVD here, I'd watch it.
I ripped my DVD of the movie & put the movie on my Zune. I have it: whereever I go :nerd:
It's amazing what Finland managed to accomplish during those dark times. They were the only country in Soviet crosshairs that managed to put up a fight strong enough for Soviets to relent. Ironically, from a territorial perspective, they came off worse than the countries that were completely defeated.
Grats on this day Finland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4
QuoteHäyhä was born in the municipality of Rautjärvi near the present-day border of Finland and Russia, and started his military service in 1925. Before entering combat, Häyhä was a farmer and a hunter. His farmhouse was reportedly full of trophies for marksmanship.[3] It was during the Winter War (1939–1940), between Finland and the Soviet Union, that he began his duty as a sniper and fought for the Finnish Army against the Red Army.
In temperatures between −20 and −40 degrees Celsius (−4 and −40 degrees Fahrenheit), dressed completely in white camouflage, Häyhä was credited with 505 confirmed kills of Soviet soldiers, and 542 if including the unconfirmed deaths. The unofficial Finnish frontline figure from the battlefield of Kollaa places the number of Häyhä's sniper kills over 800. A daily account of the kills at Kollaa was conducted for the Finnish snipers. Besides his sniper kills, Häyhä was also credited with over two hundred kills with a Suomi KP/-31 submachine gun, thus bringing his credited kills to at least 705. Remarkably, all of Häyhä's kills were accomplished in fewer than 100 days.
Häyhä used a Finnish variant, M/28, of the Soviet Mosin-Nagant rifle (known as "Pystykorva" rifle, meaning "spitz"), because it suited his small frame (5 ft 3 in/1.60 m). He preferred to use iron sights rather than telescopic sights to present a smaller target (the sniper must raise his head higher when using a telescopic sight), to prevent visibility risks (a telescopic sight's glass can fog up easily), and aid concealment (sunlight glare in telescopic sight lenses can reveal a sniper's position). Another tactic used by Häyhä was to compact the snow in front of him so that the shot wouldn't disturb the snow, thus revealing his position. He also kept snow in his mouth so that when breathing he wouldn't reveal his position.
The Soviets tried several ploys to get rid of him, including counter snipers and artillery strikes. On March 6 1940, Häyhä was shot in the jaw during combat. The bullet tumbled upon impact and left his head. He was picked up by fellow soldiers who said "half his head was missing". He regained consciousness on March 13, the day peace was declared. Shortly after the war, Häyhä was promoted straight from corporal to second lieutenant by Field Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. No one else has ever gained rank in such a quick fashion in Finland's military history.
How do you confirm sniper kills?
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 12:18:48 PM
It's amazing what Finland managed to accomplish during those dark times. They were the only country in Soviet crosshairs that managed to put up a fight strong enough for Soviets to relent. Ironically, from a territorial perspective, they came off worse than the countries that were completely defeated.
And in 1944 they kicked out the Nazis. What a fucking scary bunch.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 01:01:14 PM
How do you confirm sniper kills?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.vu.nl%2F%7Eherbertb%2Fpictures%2Fscalp.jpg&hash=b119aca1c68dd9b5a50b5985c0146774bd80ce80)
My maternal grandfather and my other grandfather's kid brother (the Jägare one I have talked about on Old Languish) played their part. :)
And how do you get 200 kills with a SMG as a sniper? I can see getting 500 kills with a rifle without getting shot, but 200 kills with a SMG sounds like a stretch (unless he fought Russian POWs inside a camp). It's not the kind of weapon that lets you shoot at bad guys from safe distance.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 01:19:12 PM
And how do you get 200 kills with a SMG as a sniper? I can see getting 500 kills with a rifle without getting shot, but 200 kills with an SMG sounds like a stretch (unless he fought Russian POWs inside a camp). It's not the kind of weapon that lets you shoot at bad guys from safe distance.
There were many ambushes where the Finns were just mowing down hapless Russians.
Quote from: The Brain on November 30, 2009, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 01:19:12 PM
And how do you get 200 kills with a SMG as a sniper? I can see getting 500 kills with a rifle without getting shot, but 200 kills with an SMG sounds like a stretch (unless he fought Russian POWs inside a camp). It's not the kind of weapon that lets you shoot at bad guys from safe distance.
There were many ambushes where the Finns were just mowing down hapless Russians.
This. Usually narrow roads with dense woods on each side where convoys could easily be trapped/cut off.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 01:19:12 PM
And how do you get 200 kills with a SMG as a sniper? I can see getting 500 kills with a rifle without getting shot, but 200 kills with a SMG sounds like a stretch (unless he fought Russian POWs inside a camp). It's not the kind of weapon that lets you shoot at bad guys from safe distance.
He's the most badass soldier to ever lived.
Super Finn!
Quote from: Faeelin on November 30, 2009, 01:06:28 PM
And in 1944 they kicked out the Nazis. What a fucking scary bunch.
It's even more scarier when you realize what equipment they fought with :punk:
Quote from: Ape on November 30, 2009, 02:49:15 PM
It's even more scarier when you realize what equipment they fought with :punk:
FWIW, their locally produced small arms (which usually incorporated some captured/purchased parts) were of extremely high quality. They took the Mosin-Nagant rifle & perfected it, resulting in the M39.
But yeah, they were light on everything else, literally having to beg, borrow & steal larger weapons.
Quote from: Gambrinus on November 30, 2009, 06:48:54 AM
Today 70 years ago the Russians attacked Finland.
And failed, thereby making possible the rise of the Emo Finnish Teenagers (TM).
Congrats, Finland, anyways.
Failed? The whole war was an unmitigated disater for Finland.
Let's recap the developments.
In early October, the Soviet Union asked Finland to negotiate boundary alterations. Moscow asked for some land near Leningrad, control of the isles in the Gulf of Finland, the use [not cession] of the port of Hanko and some small rearrangements near Murmansk.
In return, the USSR would give Finland far more land than was asked of it near the Suomussalmi area.
(The Union request was due to worries about the security of the Leningrad and Murmansk areas, as the Finnish border was very close to them, and that made those key areas vulnerable from attacks coming from those areas, especially if the USSR would be fighting a large land war elsewhere at another time).
Now, despite all the nationalistic bantering of the Finns, consider their position: at the time, they have no outside help, while the far larger Soviet Union had absolutely no other worries at the moment. Despite almost two months of negotiations, the Finnish army was woefully unprepared for war on November 30th (it only had nine divisions, with a tenth being formed), and virtually no tanks. The Air Force had only about 100 not very modern airplanes.
The whole situation was made worse because the Finnish government had decided to rely on their domestic arms production since 1938, in order to better show its neutrality. And note also that the Finnish military industry was very small, especially in munitions (up until the end of the war, it never managed more than 10 shells per artillery piece per day), and you have a recipe for disaster.
On the other side, each Soviet division was larger than its Finnish counterparts, had three times more artillery, and each was supported by more tanks than the whole Finnish Army had. The Red Air Force numbered over 8,000 planes, a good number of those decently modern for 1939.
Since day one, and no matter how many tactical victories the Finns might win (since the Soviet preparations were a bit rushed and there were coordination problems between the different arms), there could have been only one outcome to the conflict.
The whole process of negotiations was a recipe for disaster for Finland. It should have been obvious that the Soviet Union meant business and that the correct interpretation of Moscow's willingness to negotiate was a desire to avoid war and not a sign of weakness. Helsinki made far too many wrong choices.
And let is not delve into the 'War of Continuation', which is even more embarrassing - joining the German attack in 1941 but stopping just a but over its original borders and them sitting put not helping its allies at all until the Germans are pretty much defeated and then waiting for the USSR to give it a massive wallop which resulted in the cession of even more land than what was lost in 1940 is pretty damn retarded.
Come to think about it, most of Germany's allies acted moronically during the war. Finland, Japan, Italy are all prime examples of what not to do in a war. In a purely strategic sense, overall they fought worse than the AI in a Paradox game, and that's saying something.
[Imagines Hitler creating a thread on the Paradox fora under the title 'My allies stopped moving - WTF?']
The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw.
What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.
I figured Martim would come on here and tell us how resistance to his Communist Masters is futile :P
WE WILL BURY YOU!
Good old Martim. :)
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 03:00:50 PM
Quote from: Ape on November 30, 2009, 02:49:15 PM
It's even more scarier when you realize what equipment they fought with :punk:
FWIW, their locally produced small arms (which usually incorporated some captured/purchased parts) were of extremely high quality. They took the Mosin-Nagant rifle & perfected it, resulting in the M39.
But yeah, they were light on everything else, literally having to beg, borrow & steal larger weapons.
:yes: My grandfather (Swedish army officer) went to Finland in 39 and trained Finns to use the Swedish AT guns that they were shipped. The guns were much appreciated.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 03:37:37 PM
The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw.
Note that, unlike Germany, the USSR actually offered Finland *more* land in exchange for the territories it wanted.
Quote from: Malthus
What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.
Moral issues apart, when the difference in forces is so great, aren't you really just inviting a trashing and harsher terms? (which was what happened, the terms of the 1940 peace were rather harsher than the ones initially offered - the USSR got everything it wanted, Finland got nothing in return except dead, wounded and displaced people).
On a strictly practical point, I ask you - was it worth it? If it had accepted the terms and not allied with the Germans, modern Finland would still have the Petsamo area, and more land in the Karelia.
Quote from: Valmy
I figured Martim would come on here and tell us how resistance to his Communist Masters is futile :P
It's late 1939. You're Finland. The USSR makes demands. How can resistance be of any use, pray tell?
I find your abundance of faith in Communism disturbing.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 03:54:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 03:37:37 PM
The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw.
Note that, unlike Germany, the USSR actually offered Finland *more* land in exchange for the territories it wanted.
Quote from: Malthus
What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.
Moral issues apart, when the difference in forces is so great, aren't you really just inviting a trashing and harsher terms? (which was what happened, the terms of the 1940 peace were rather harsher than the ones initially offered - the USSR got everything it wanted, Finland got nothing in return except more dead and wounded).
On a strictly practical point, I ask you - was it worth it? If it had accepted the terms and not allied with the Germans, modern Finland would still have the Petsamo area, and more land in the Karelia.
Quote from: Valmy
I figured Martim would come on here and tell us how resistance to his Communist Masters is futile :P
It's late 1939. You're Finland. The USSR makes demands. How can resistance be of any use, pray tell?
You have no evidence that meekly giving in to Soviet demands would have had such an outcome.
As it was, most of Finland was Soviet-free after WW2. Presumably the Finns found the sacrifice worthwhile.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 03:37:37 PM
The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw.
What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.
Agreed. Former parts of the Russian Empire were going back to Mother Russia one way or the other. The Soviets ignored the non-aggression pacts when they started the Winter War, what was going to hold them back after Finland gave up some of its land and defenses?
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 03:54:06 PM
Note that, unlike Germany, the USSR actually offered Finland *more* land in exchange for the territories it wanted.
The Karelian Isthmus Soviets were demanding had practically the only effective fortifications and also served as the gateway to Helsinki thanks to favourable terrain. Had Finland turned it over as Stalin demanded, a highway to Helsinki would have been opened to Soviet tanks. But of course, Stalin was a such a trusthworthy and peace loving anti-imperialist, he would never have utilized the chance and Finns were stupid not to let down their only cover versus the Red Army. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 03:37:37 PM
The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw.
What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.
Yep, they'd be giving up a good strategic position in the south without a fight too. If the Soviets are going to attack its good to have your guns in range of one of their major cities and some fortifications ready to meet their assault.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 03:59:54 PM
Agreed. Former parts of the Russian Empire were going back to Mother Russia one way or the other. The Soviets ignored the non-aggression pacts when they started the Winter War, what was going to hold them back after Finland gave up some of its land and defenses?
Of course, the best part of the argument is the Russians needed Finland to defend against aggressors. Once the Finns had managed to survive...
Nice job breaking it, Stalin.
Quote from: Malthus
You have no evidence that meekly giving in to Soviet demands would have had such an outcome.
The USSR could have rolled over Finland completely in 1944-45. It did not. If all Moscow wanted was to annex the Finns, Finland would have ceased to exist then.
Quote from: Malthus
As it was, most of Finland was Soviet-free after WW2. Presumably the Finns found the sacrifice worthwhile.
Not really. Finns like to promote that myth, but what they don't say is that they agreed to many demands from Moscow and became deeply involved with the Eastern Bloc: apart from the territories cededm under the 1947 peace treaty, Finland had to imprison several prominent politicians, reduce its armed forces, paid heavy economic reparations and allow the Soviet naval base at Hanko.
In addition, the separate Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance concluded in 1948 obligated Finland to militarily ally with the USSR if she was attacked. Helsinki also signed the Finnish-Soviet Clearing Trade and Payment System, which opened the markets of both countries to each other. As long as the USSR existed, Finland was not 'Soviet-free'.
Quote from: Brezel on November 30, 2009, 04:03:51 PM
The Karelian Isthmus Soviets were demanding had practically the only effective fortifications and also served as the gateway to Helsinki thanks to favourable terrain. Had Finland turned it over as Stalin demanded, a highway to Helsinki would have been opened to Soviet tanks. But of course, Stalin was a such a trusthworthy and peace loving anti-imperialist, he would never have utilized the chance and Finns were stupid not to let down their only cover versus the Red Army. :rolleyes:
I'm going to be blunt: Finland had no 'effective fortifications' against the USSR. You could build all the bunkers you wanted, but still in the case of a war with the USSR, Finland could only be the loser, period. Having forts that allow the country to last 1-2 more months counts for absolutely zero in the grand scheme of things.
When the difference of forces is gigantic, you have two choices: you quit or you lose. There is no other way around it. And it does not make a damn difference weather you 'trust' Stalin or not - he could chew Finland whenever he wanted, no matter what Helsinki thought or did. So the Finns would have done better to take what was given to them.
And I recall - when she had the chance to annex the country, the USSR let Finland exist.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 04:10:49 PM
As long as the USSR existed, Finland was not 'Soviet-free'.
More Soviet free than the Romanians who did give the Soviets what they asked for.
:lol: That's all great Martim, except that you are living in a fantasy world.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2009, 04:17:51 PM
More Soviet free than the Romanians who did give the Soviets what they asked for.
At the time it decided to switch sides, the Red Army was already very near Bucharest and, more importantly, it was in the way for other areas - a good entry into Hungary, into Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania.
Unlike Finland, the USSR pretty much had to keep going through Rumania to get more countries. Otherwise the Western Allies would get there first. And Stalin did let Churchill keep Greece, as promised.
Quote from: The Brain on November 30, 2009, 04:18:40 PM
:lol: That's all great Martim, except that you are living in a fantasy world.
I'm merely stating historical facts. People dreaming Finland could somehow 'win' over the USSR are the ones living in la-la land.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 04:10:49 PM
Not really. Finns like to promote that myth, but what they don't say is that they agreed to many demands from Moscow and became deeply involved with the Eastern Bloc: apart from the territories cededm under the 1947 peace treaty, Finland had to imprison several prominent politicians, reduce its armed forces, paid heavy economic reparations and allow the Soviet naval base at Hanko.
In addition, the separate Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance concluded in 1948 obligated Finland to militarily ally with the USSR if she was attacked. Helsinki also signed the Finnish-Soviet Clearing Trade and Payment System, which opened the markets of both countries to each other. As long as the USSR existed, Finland was not 'Soviet-free'.
Being "friends" with SU after the war wasn't bad in the long run. It really saw the imports rise. It's too bad that we missed on the whole "deportation-to-Siberia & Influx of native Russians" -thing Estonia saw happen for them. Seeing how great it still pays off in foreign and inner political climate in modern Baltic.
Quote from: Brezel on November 30, 2009, 04:23:23 PM
Being "friends" with SU after the war wasn't bad in the long run. It really saw the imports rise. It's too bad that we missed on the whole "deportation-to-Siberia & Influx of native Russians" -thing Estonia had going on for them. Seeing how great it still pays off in foreign and inner political climate in modern Baltic.
OF COURSE it wasn't bad. It wasn't meant to be bad, it was meant to help both countries to prosper together. :hug:
And Estonia is a good example. Moscow *wanted* to gobble Estonia up. As a result...
Whereas Moscow *did not want* to gobble Finland. Which demonstrates the long-term strategy of the Kremlin towards Finland and proves the utter folly of Helsinki by allowing the 1939 war to happen.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 04:26:52 PM
Whereas Moscow *did not want* to gobble Finland. Which demonstrates the long-term strategy of the Kremlin towards Finland and proves the utter folly of Helsinki by allowing the 1939 war to happen.
Yes! In fact, the Soviet Army just spontaneously, shining out the sheer good-will of Moscow towards the puny Finns decided to stop it's advance at the old border.
Quote
When the difference of forces is gigantic, you have two choices: you quit or you lose. There is no other way around it. And it does not make a damn difference weather you 'trust' Stalin or not - he could chew Finland whenever he wanted, no matter what Helsinki thought or did. So the Finns would have done better to take what was given to them.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F02%2FRaate_road.jpg%2F220px-Raate_road.jpg&hash=926ed973cf00bf913032211dd683bf90f35893bc)
Liberators of 44th division, taking a rest after chewing some Finland.
Best thread of the day. Apologism of the Winter War? fun.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 04:10:49 PM
I'm going to be blunt: Finland had no 'effective fortifications' against the USSR. You could build all the bunkers you wanted, but still in the case of a war with the USSR, Finland could only be the loser, period. Having forts that allow the country to last 1-2 more months counts for absolutely zero in the grand scheme of things.
When the difference of forces is gigantic, you have two choices: you quit or you lose. There is no other way around it. And it does not make a damn difference weather you 'trust' Stalin or not - he could chew Finland whenever he wanted, no matter what Helsinki thought or did. So the Finns would have done better to take what was given to them.
And I recall - when she had the chance to annex the country, the USSR let Finland exist.
When you're in a position that Finland was in, your best bet to maintain your independence was to let the enemy know that conquering you would be very cost-prohibitive. Finland did that as well as it could.
The first step in the takeover of the Baltic states was a request for basing rights.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 04:40:53 PM
The first step in the takeover of the Baltic states was a request for basing rights.
What's really funny is that we know Stalin wanted to conquer Finland, since he set up a puppet Finnish government. But whatev.
Yes, the war was clearly a complete disaster for Finland
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpix.motivatedphotos.com%2F2008%2F7%2F8%2F633511023806381728-finland---be-afraid-very-afraid.jpg&hash=267d88bb8bb7930d3f8095b496fb9fc302d7be58)
Earlier in the day, I was going to troll this thread. But now, I don't need to.
Me = Redundant. :(
What is it about Portugal, is it something in the water? We've had extreme right, extreme left, and extreme illiteracy all represented here.
Quote from: Brezel on November 30, 2009, 04:31:33 PM
Yes! In fact, the Soviet Army just spontaneously, shining out the sheer good-will of Moscow towards the puny Finns decided to stop it's advance at the old border.
Actually, the Red Army stopped because the Finns asked for peace and accepted all demands - if you recall, Marshal Mannerheim had told the Germans that if they retreated from Estonia, then Helsinki would make peace, regardless of terms.
That was indeed a good way to stop the Red Army - you gave Moscow what it asked for.
Quote from: Dguller
When you're in a position that Finland was in, your best bet to maintain your independence was to let the enemy know that conquering you would be very cost-prohibitive. Finland did that as well as it could.
The USSR was not the USA. 'Cost-prohibitive'? Out of a land of less than 5 million? Compared to the conquest of the whole of eastern and central Europe?
The USSR demonstrated in the Ukraine (and Russia in Chechnya) what happens to small populations that try to be 'cost-prohibitive'. They eventually found out Russia has more soldiers than they had population.
Quote from: Admira Yi
What's really funny is that we know Stalin wanted to conquer Finland, since he set up a puppet Finnish government. But whatev.
As you should know, the government of Otto Kuusinen was only announced *after* the war began - it did not exist during the negotiations, it was a rush job to be used at the bargain table (and it did its job, being dropped as part of the peace treaty)
Quote from: Disturbed Pervert
Yes, the war was clearly a complete disaster for Finland.
What counts is who gets what at the end. Like the Ottomans getting Rhodes despite 200,000 losses. They still won that war.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 04:45:57 PM
What is it about Portugal, is it something in the water? We've had extreme right, extreme left, and extreme illiteracy all represented here.
We're still the only country in the world that applied to join the Warsaw Pact of its own volution.
(and got turned down by the USSR. Brejnev came here in person to tell us not to join. THAT was embarrassing :Embarrass: )
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 05:00:18 PM
Actually, the Red Army stopped because the Finns asked for peace and accepted all demands - if you recall, Marshal Mannerheim had told the Germans that if they retreated from Estonia, then Helsinki would make peace, regardless of terms.
That was indeed a good way to stop the Red Army - you gave Moscow what it asked for.
Sigh.
I'm sure you know Moscow initially asked for complete disarmament and unconditional surrender. It wasn't until the halt of the offensive on Karelian Isthmus that acceptable conditions were offered. Finland's army was in relatively good condition before the truce. Soviet offensive was brought to halt in battle.
Quote from: Brezel on November 30, 2009, 05:16:15 PM
I'm sure you know Moscow initially asked for complete disarmament and unconditional surrender.
I really don't think he cares.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 01:19:12 PM
And how do you get 200 kills with a SMG as a sniper? I can see getting 500 kills with a rifle without getting shot, but 200 kills with a SMG sounds like a stretch (unless he fought Russian POWs inside a camp). It's not the kind of weapon that lets you shoot at bad guys from safe distance.
Trench raids, as well
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2009, 03:00:50 PM
Quote from: Ape on November 30, 2009, 02:49:15 PM
It's even more scarier when you realize what equipment they fought with :punk:
FWIW, their locally produced small arms (which usually incorporated some captured/purchased parts) were of extremely high quality. They took the Mosin-Nagant rifle & perfected it, resulting in the M39.
But yeah, they were light on everything else, literally having to beg, borrow & steal larger weapons.
The most numerous artillery piece they had in 1944, was the french 120mm Model 1878 de Bange gun, it had no recoil system...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on November 30, 2009, 05:46:34 PM
The most numerous artillery piece they had in 1944, was the french 120mm Model 1878 de Bange gun, it had no recoil system...
Great name.
Quote from: Lucidor on November 30, 2009, 05:29:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 01:19:12 PM
And how do you get 200 kills with a SMG as a sniper? I can see getting 500 kills with a rifle without getting shot, but 200 kills with a SMG sounds like a stretch (unless he fought Russian POWs inside a camp). It's not the kind of weapon that lets you shoot at bad guys from safe distance.
Trench raids, as well
Would a sniper be participating in the raids or ambushes, though?
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 05:48:50 PM
Quote from: Lucidor on November 30, 2009, 05:29:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 01:19:12 PM
And how do you get 200 kills with a SMG as a sniper? I can see getting 500 kills with a rifle without getting shot, but 200 kills with a SMG sounds like a stretch (unless he fought Russian POWs inside a camp). It's not the kind of weapon that lets you shoot at bad guys from safe distance.
Trench raids, as well
Would a sniper be participating in the raids or ambushes, though?
Good point.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 05:02:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 04:45:57 PM
What is it about Portugal, is it something in the water? We've had extreme right, extreme left, and extreme illiteracy all represented here.
We're still the only country in the world that applied to join the Warsaw Pact of its own volution.
(and got turned down by the USSR. Brejnev came here in person to tell us not to join. THAT was embarrassing :Embarrass: )
What? Portugal was an original member of NATO
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 05:48:50 PM
Would a sniper be participating in the raids or ambushes, though?
Why wouldn't he? I mean it is not like Finland really had the manpower to specialize that much.
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
"And that, my children, is how Hitler won the war."
Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 12:05:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
"And that, my children, is how Hitler won the war."
I wasn't being serious, I do find it funny though that serious plans were made to do just that. :lol:
Though maybe the US would have gotten involved in the war earlier, the Congress was a lot more hostile to the Soviet Union than Nazi Germany at that point.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
Narvik?, how is how would invading a country that has nothing to do with the conflict between the Sojvet Union and Finland in any way help Finland?...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2009, 12:31:35 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 12:05:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
"And that, my children, is how Hitler won the war."
I wasn't being serious, I do find it funny though that serious plans were made to do just that. :lol:
Though maybe the US would have gotten involved in the war earlier, the Congress was a lot more hostile to the Soviet Union than Nazi Germany at that point.
Not only that, but the plan was to land in Narvik and advance overland to northern Sweden and occupy the iron mines. It's probably for the best that those plans were never put into action :D
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 01, 2009, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
Narvik?, how is how would invading a country that has nothing to do with the conflict between the Sojvet Union and Finland in any way help Finland?...
Obviously the Norwegians and Swedes would welcome us with open arms for protecting them from the evil Soviet-Nazi alliance.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:13:41 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 30, 2009, 05:02:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2009, 04:45:57 PM
What is it about Portugal, is it something in the water? We've had extreme right, extreme left, and extreme illiteracy all represented here.
We're still the only country in the world that applied to join the Warsaw Pact of its own volution.
(and got turned down by the USSR. Brejnev came here in person to tell us not to join. THAT was embarrassing :Embarrass: )
What? Portugal was an original member of NATO
Falling again for his trolling or what? :D
Left-wings radicals in Lisbon and Alentejo in '75 wanted to join the Warsaw Pact but that's all.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2009, 02:42:31 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 01, 2009, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
Narvik?, how is how would invading a country that has nothing to do with the conflict between the Sojvet Union and Finland in any way help Finland?...
Obviously the Norwegians and Swedes would welcome us with open arms for protecting them from the evil Soviet-Nazi alliance.
So you are going to attack both Norway and Sweden, nice. Still that doesnt get you closer to helping the finns, but that might not be your purpose with the invasion from the beginning... ;)
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 01, 2009, 04:50:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2009, 02:42:31 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 01, 2009, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
Narvik?, how is how would invading a country that has nothing to do with the conflict between the Sojvet Union and Finland in any way help Finland?...
Obviously the Norwegians and Swedes would welcome us with open arms for protecting them from the evil Soviet-Nazi alliance.
So you are going to attack both Norway and Sweden, nice. Still that doesnt get you closer to helping the finns, but that might not be your purpose with the invasion from the beginning... ;)
Well the reason it didn't happen is the Swedes said no. However if the Swedes had been noble/suicidal and said yes a three way world war would have begun.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2009, 04:53:44 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 01, 2009, 04:50:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2009, 02:42:31 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 01, 2009, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 30, 2009, 11:40:51 PM
The Western Allies should have intervened. Bomb Baku! Land troops at Narvik!
Narvik?, how is how would invading a country that has nothing to do with the conflict between the Sojvet Union and Finland in any way help Finland?...
Obviously the Norwegians and Swedes would welcome us with open arms for protecting them from the evil Soviet-Nazi alliance.
So you are going to attack both Norway and Sweden, nice. Still that doesnt get you closer to helping the finns, but that might not be your purpose with the invasion from the beginning... ;)
Well the reason it didn't happen is the Swedes said no. However if the Swedes had been noble/suicidal and said yes a three way world war would have begun.
With the Swedes having to deal alonge, with the Sovjet Navy and Air force lining up, out side their Capital Stockholm, fat chance...
Quote from: Duque de Bragança
Falling again for his trolling or what? :D
Left-wings radicals in Lisbon and Alentejo in '75 wanted to join the Warsaw Pact but that's all.
And you fail miserably at Portuguese History. Again.
The 'radicals' in Lisbon and Alentejo you say happened to be the Government (of the PM Vasco Gonçalves).
And it wasn't a rumour, hence Brezhnev's visit to Portugal.
Here, read in offical US documents how Kissinger discussed our entry in the Warsaw Pact with the leaders of Poland:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e15/107785.htm
GIEREK: Yes, and I have been to Viet-Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia--all over Asia. In Europe I have been to every country with the exception of Portugal and I hope soon to go there.
SECRETARY (Kissinger): Do you think they will join the Warsaw Pact soon?
GIEREK: We would certainly give serious consideration to that but, as you know, in the Warsaw Pact there are both privileges and duties that must be accepted. So far, however, there has been no such development. The Soviet Union is only one of the members. We would all have our own opinion.
ZABLOCKI: Do all the members of the Warsaw Pact have an equal voice?
GIEREK: Yes.
OLSZOWSKI: As concerns Portugal, it might be better for them to start with COMECON.
FRELEK: Yes, the Portuguese have an economic problem.
SECRETARY: We may yet have a situation in which Portugal is a member both of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Do you think that would advance European security?
OLSZOWSKI: That could be Basket IV.
JAGIELSKI: That would certainly be a new experience.
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 01, 2009, 07:05:53 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança
Falling again for his trolling or what? :D
Left-wings radicals in Lisbon and Alentejo in '75 wanted to join the Warsaw Pact but that's all.
And you fail miserably at Portuguese History. Again.
The 'radicals' in Lisbon and Alentejo you say happened to be the Government (of the PM Vasco Gonçalves).
Nice try, it's comical though
cf.
Quote
ZABLOCKI: Do all the members of the Warsaw Pact have an equal voice?
GIEREK: Yes.
Lisboete Junta happened to be quite radical by then since moderates were nowhere to be seen. Vasco Gonçalves was a hardcore PCP communist so the left-wing radical label is perfectly legitimate.
Besides, there were plans to transfer the capital to Porto, approved even by nowadays Sócrates PS...
It would have been nice if only to get rid of that pesky Lisboete centralisation ;)
Btw, did you celebrate November 25th ? :D
i.e end of the leftist phase of the Carnation Revolution for the non-Lusophones here
end of playtime for Vasco Gonçalves and the like.
This thread was interesting.
I don't see why some consider Stalin's demand legitimate. "I'm bad & big, I've killed 38,000 of my officers in the recent year, I want this & that. Give it to me."
Quote from: Grey Fox
don't see why some consider Stalin's demand legitimate. "I'm bad & big, I've killed 38,000 of my officers in the recent year, I want this & that. Give it to me."
I'd go in more detail when I have the time, but the more accurate description is:
"I'm HUGE, I have no other problems and you have no outside support. I want this, in exchange I give you twice more elsewhere. Accept or face the consequences".
Quote from: Duque de Bragança
Lisboete Junta happened to be quite radical by then since moderates were nowhere to be seen. Vasco Gonçalves was a hardcore PCP communist so the left-wing radical label is perfectly legitimate.
'Lisboete Junta' is not a portuguese phrase, what are you trying to say?
Vasco Gonçalves was the Prime Minister, he led the Constitutional Government as head of Government. You can't get more legitimate than that, it was not some oddballs in a remote part of the country. The days of the Military Junta were over by then.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança
Btw, did you celebrate November 25th ? :D
i.e end of the leftist phase of the Carnation Revolution for the non-Lusophones here
end of playtime for Vasco Gonçalves and the like.
As you would know if you say,
actually lived here and were alive at the time, nobody knows if November 25th was a coup, or even a coup by the Left or the Right. The Left says it was the Right, the Right says it was the Left.
Vasco Lourenço (Center, head of the Operational Command for the Continent) basically noted that it were the paratroopes who were fooled into making a move by occupying key buildings and says the MP allied with them. Major Tomé (Left, vice-commander of the MP at the time) says they never joined the paratroopers and that his unit was attacked without provocation. Lourenço claims he only attacked because Tomé and Andrade never reported to HQ as ordered [Tomé says they would not abandon their unit at such a dangerous time]
As for which side made the coup - if that was a coup - everybody (Otelo, Lourenço, Tomé, Eanes) say "we don't know". It kinda just happened.
I myself had fun that day (in '75) as things were utterly chaotic and I love when societal order breaks down [I also had a ball months earlier, when the military besieged Parliament].
Quote from: Duque de Bragança
Lisboete Junta happened to be quite radical by then since moderates were nowhere to be seen. Vasco Gonçalves was a hardcore PCP communist so the left-wing radical label is perfectly legitimate.
Quote from: Martim Silva
'Lisboete Junta' is not a portuguese phrase, what are you trying to say?
That's right, since it's an English board. Just to mean that the situation in Lisbon did not reflect the situation of the country in general cf. elections in 1975 where the PCP had like 12% of the popular vote.
Quote from: Martim Silva
Vasco Gonçalves was the Prime Minister, he led the Constitutional Government as head of Government. You can't get more legitimate than that, it was not some oddballs in a remote part of the country. The days of the Military Junta were over by then.
Spínola was also the first Constitutional President yet he got ousted as Vasco Gonçalves after a putsch attempt (intoxication by communists?). I am not sure you consider him as legitimate as Vasco though...
Ever heard of the salami tactic used by communist parties ? Coup de Prague?
Porto remote part of the country? Not even Benfica fans go that far. :lol:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança
Btw, did you celebrate November 25th ? :D
i.e end of the leftist phase of the Carnation Revolution for the non-Lusophones here.
End of playtime for Vasco Gonçalves and the like.
Quote from: Martim Silva
As you would know if you say, actually lived here and were alive at the time, nobody knows if November 25th was a coup, or even a coup by the Left or the Right. The Left says it was the Right, the Right says it was the Left.
I wasn't alive so I couldn't be there but I've got hindsight something you are sorely lacking. Not to mention blinded by politics as in your case. I guess you are now disqualified to speak about October 5th or December 1st. ;)
Or was it another attack for VOTING and living abroad as many leftists do since Portuguese abroad don't vote for the left?
Quote
Vasco Lourenço (Center, head of the Operational Command for the Continent) basically noted that it were the paratroopes who were fooled into making a move by occupying key buildings and says the MP allied with them. Major Tomé (Left, vice-commander of the MP at the time) says they never joined the paratroopers and that his unit was attacked without provocation. Lourenço claims he only attacked because Tomé and Andrade never reported to HQ as ordered [Tomé says they would not abandon their unit at such a dangerous time]
COPCON created by Spínola which also claimed he had to do something in March 11. We all know how it ended.
Quote
As for which side made the coup - if that was a coup - everybody (Otelo, Lourenço, Tomé, Eanes) say "we don't know". It kinda just happened.
I myself had fun that day (in '75) as things were utterly chaotic and I love when societal order breaks down [I also had a ball months earlier, when the military besieged Parliament].
That I can agree with, the situation was chaotic at times. Watching in retrospect the Alentejan cooperatives is hilarious (jeeps for tractors for instance).
Saying the extreme left did not try to seize power is naive at best though.
The PS contributed in saving the country I guess and that's the one thing Soares can be lauded for.
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 01, 2009, 10:22:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox
don't see why some consider Stalin's demand legitimate. "I'm bad & big, I've killed 38,000 of my officers in the recent year, I want this & that. Give it to me."
I'd go in more detail when I have the time, but the more accurate description is:
"I'm HUGE, I have no other problems and you have no outside support. I want this, in exchange I give you twice more elsewhere. Accept or face the consequences".
Twice more elsewhere isn't a good deal if the new land is worthless. You have to include natonalistic consideration too.