How did they fuck this up?

How did they fuck this up?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Stalinization
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_warfare_in_the_Winter_War
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Russian incompetence

They didn't though

to be perfectly honest it was one the saddest battles of all times.

Finnish farmers versus Ukrainian and Belarussian slave soldiers with inadequate clothes for the northern winter.

stalin killed all generals, red army was technically commanded by morons at this time

Russian Imperial general vs a Georgian

What, how?

As far is remember their armies never reached Helsinki, Oulu, Kemi/Tornio or the cities in Savo(nia).

why do russians have such bad k/d ratios???

>"""winter""" war
take a wild guess

WTF I hate Stalin now

How is Stalin viewed in Russia nowadays?

Supplying problem
Soviet commanders incompetence
Lost air battle
Poor equipment
Poor preparations
Pretty much like 1812

Despite Mannerheim's ferce resistance, Stalin was able to move Finnish borders enough away from Leningrad that it didn't fall to a surprise attack that came 2 years later

their politicians and generals don't give a shit about the number of dead russkies since russians are not even human beings. we kill some flies or bugs a lot and don't get upset because of this. russians are basically no more that cockroaches.

From slightly positive cuz muh ebil industry to hate.

because getting captured is not preferrable to death, especially in ww2 it wasn't

I think death+captivity losses on Eastern front are actually a little better than those on Western Euro front

Fuck off pole
Less russians died than russified pollocks

Who, Finns? By not agreeing to Soviet offer.

Differently
We're a free country, anybody can think what they will of anybody.

Mostly it's "he won the war and did some cool things but he was also a madman who killed all those people"

Yeah I guess he achieved the minimum goal but after all it was a massive failure for the Soviets.

I mean they had planned parades in Helsinki and in Oulu in the north for their armies but their progression were halted in every front. Even Viipuri/Vyborg region, which was their minimun objective were only conquered after massive Soviet losses.

>slightly positive
>slightly
wut? you LITERALLY pray to him like he is a saint

They attacked during winter thats their problem. During summer they could have easily zerg-rushed us. And their plan to conquer whole Finland was just ridiculous

>If you win a war - you still lose
Finnish logic is adorable

...

I thought we're talking about Russians not commie tatards

If your objective is to conquer the whole country and you only get one city while losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers - that's a loss to me.

The Soviets didn't achieve their fullobjectives. It's a "victory" that was an embarrassment due to Soviet stupidity.

>sacrifice thousands of lives to grab some empty forest
look mom I won!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Stalinization

>we're talking about Russians not commie tatards
are you seriously this dumb? a russian can not be a communist by your logic?

I don't know that much about the war, you must realize it was a minor conflict in our history, despite the bad losses.

But yeah it seem clear that if not for that stupid war, Leningrad would have probably fallen and Moscow would have likely been encircled and might have even fallen as well

So this is an example of a rather stupid move that worked out reasonably well in the end, same as the short war with Japan Soviets fought about the same time that probably stopped japan from invading from the east in force along with Hitler.

And if Stalin annexed Romania with its oilfields in 1940, Hitler likely wouldn't have had oil enough to even start ww2. He didn't do it, some say, because of how badly his experiment in Finland went

Their objective was to push border, that is exactly what they achieved. Finnish army was completely crushed and in retreat in the end. Soviets didn't enter Helsinki because they never intended to. Like they didn't 6 years later when you lost another war. Stop deluding yourself.

It's maybe less than 0.1%

>Lose a war and a crap ton of land
>Look, mom, I won!

You planned to amnex whole country and got slaughtered by a bunch of finns

I would say it was pretty succesful campaign for us. And looking back what a poor shithole soviet russia was, it was a real victory to not become part of you

That plan only existed in asspained finnish minds. You lost every single war against us, even the one when you were allied with Nazis. These delusions of yours are both hilarious and pathetic.

"we" posting in this thread, didn't want anythig
stalin, the guys who killed a bunch of russians, was a dictator and that was his idea

still, your insistance that you know his plans in a conjecture that just finnish historians want to believe because that makes the only war you fought as a nation kind of a victory, which is a nice thing to write in history books when the previous part is about how you slaughtered a bunch of your own countrymen in a civil war. i think this is partly why russians like the ww2 glory, but, commies actually won back then

>what is Molotov–Ribbentrop pact
I know your history books are propaganda but you could at least try to research it on the internet

Wtf? Is that what they teach you in Russia?

If they only wanted a buffer zone for Leningrad why the hell did they attacked in full force against all of Finland from north to south?

>what is Molotov–Ribbentrop pact
the LAST in a series of pacts European leaders signed with Hitler, AFTER stalin tried to form a pact AGAINST him

why not? should they have attacked only where enemy was expected them? that's not actually how wars are fought bro

We are well aware that the British and French fucked as in the WW2 but Russia was the only who tried to invade us.

>The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, also known as the Nazi-Soviet Pact[1] or the German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact[2][3] (officially: Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), was a neutrality pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 by foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov, respectively.

>the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Romania, into German and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries.

"us", yeah. It's not like you never heard of any places Britain or France invaded around that time

So are you saying that if the Soviet armies would have reached the Northern cities and Helsinki they'd just leave them and be happy with a tiny safety zone in Southern Karelia?

Give me a break. They were after Finland and Scandinavia after that.

General Frost serving for Finland too.

Yeah, us. I'm well aware of what the British and French have done in their history but it isn't really relevant now, is it?

last one, yeah
after several tries to contain Hitler, yeah

what's your point? the only reason that pact happened is anti-commie sentiment. in the age of brits suppressing uprisings all around their vast empire and after a series of annexations even in Europe, you're upset because commies, in a treaty they were forced into, wrote a "secret" wishlist?

And the only pact that gave Hitler all the oil and stuff he needed to be able to wage another great war.

claiming security reasons, primarily the protection of Leningrad, which was only 32 km (20 mi) from the Finnish border.[28][29][30] (Though the border that was "only 32 km (20 mi)" from Leningrad was the end of a narrow finger of coastline about 15 km (9.3 mi) long by 5 km (3.1 mi) wide; most of the Finnish border was more than 50 km (31 mi) from Leningrad.[31][32]) Finland refused and the USSR invaded the country. Many sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland, and use the establishment of the puppet Finnish Communist government and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact's secret protocols as proof of this,[33][34][35][36][37][38] while other sources argue against the idea of a full Soviet conquest.[39][40][41]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

You were allied with literally Hitler. You should be glad that your country wasn't razed to the ground. If anything, Stalin was too kind to you.

Pretty sure it wasn't empty back then :^)

I am rather sure the Finn is just using it as a proof for you intending to conquer all of Finland, not just some tiny parts of it.

because...
they were evil?

i'm just curious what your textbooks say about the reasoning after Comintern idea was shelved for almost a decade. Stalin needed a buffer on Central European Plain, there's little reason to want Finland or Norway or Sweden, they're no threat and would be too unmanageable

That was during to Continuation War which happened later. And I agree, we should have stopped at the old border then.

But that doesn't justify your offensive in the winter of 1939.

well it has "sphere of influence" written in it, so it's no proof of that

Because they declared a Finnish and Karelian SOviet Republic in the middle of the war?

there's tons of things you do in the middle of the war because it's useful in war

like i said, the idea that Stalin wanted all of Finland is a conjecture. I owulld even agree it was possible if I had even one good reason as to why he would want it

No need to explain that, seems like he's just trying to evade to admit that he was wrong at this point

We all know what the "territorial and political rearrangements" meant for baltics :^^)

Well Stalin was evil, there's no doubt about that and as a Russian you should know it better than anyone as he killed millions of your countrymen.

Stalin needed a buffer zone which in his mind was whole of Finland and later maybe Sweden against the Nazi conquered Norway and Denmark.

As he only managed to conquer small slices of land in Southern Karelia and in Northern Finland was a massive failure, nothing else.

And he conquered all the other Spheres, the only Spheres he didn't take was some land in Poland after some treaties with the Germans and most of the one in Finland after armed resistance.

He had a hard on for the Russian empire?
Why are you saying someone that wants to conquer land they really don't need must be evil?

Finland is useless as a buffer, because there's no powerful countries beyond

THe only good land to hold as a buffer there is places like Sweden's Gotland, but taking and holding Sweden anf Finland for that is too much wasted resources.

I think on every step Stalin only took what he could hold. And he was brutal and yeah pretty fucked up, but he was a man of his time, I wouldn't say he was more 'evil" than heavy-handed colonial manager Churchill or mass-murdring-to-test-a-weapon Rosevelt

But if there being no powerful nations beyond Finland that makes Finland worthy to take as a buffer, why even take anything from Finland?

If Finland was so useless why did he waste hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldier in the Eastern Finnish swamps and forests?

> he conquered all except for some
yeah

> they really don't need
all I'm saying is Stalin eded up controlling land that was worth controlling for strategic reasons. i assume there is a sort of logic to his actions. I see no reason to conquer Finland.

It would be like Russia conquering Georgia in 2008. SUre we can, their army is broken and running, troops are near the capital. Why did Medvedev/Putin stop? Only because not stopping and retreating to Abkhazia/ S.Ossetia would have been stupid

>I wouldn't say he was more 'evil" than heavy-handed colonial manager Churchill or mass-murdring-to-test-a-weapon Rosevelt
LOL keep telling yourself that

Hell, did you even read history books? Nah, read just this thread.

Finland held some land within 1930es artillery shot from Leningrad, and prior to war they were offered to cede that land. It was a strategic threat from Finland itself. So as Finland moved away a little, it became instantly tolerable

Does Finns believe the next war is gonna be like that (if it happens)? I mean after the Georgian war in 2008 (which they won) the Russian army have become more and more professional and modernised. If Russia invades now, it would not be poorly trained conscripts pooring over the border, but highly trained forces. I can't really see Finland winning in todays enviroment (not that we are in any better position).

Stalin mostly killed Russians. Love how foreigners like people who kill foreigners better. And i know you guys aren't doing it because you like Russians either.
I wonder why then

>yeah
He had good reasons to not take all the land in Poland as the Germans gave him things in exchange for it, you can't say that about Finland.

>all I'm saying is Stalin eded up controlling land that was worth controlling for strategic reasons. i assume there is a sort of logic to his actions. I see no reason to conquer Finland.
But if Finland isn't strategic to control, then why even bother taking land from it? Now all he did was pissing of Finland even more, Finland only refraining from closing the iron circle around Leningrad because they occupied the land they wanted or needed to defend the land they wanted.


>It would be like Russia conquering Georgia in 2008. SUre we can, their army is broken and running, troops are near the capital. Why did Medvedev/Putin stop? Only because not stopping and retreating to Abkhazia/ S.Ossetia would have been stupid
Putin hadn't just annexed three other countries and taken land from two others when that happened.

I can't see Russia attacking in today's environment man

And in any all-out war which any war with NATO and NATO-ish Finland would be, of course Russia would have conscripts

>Roosevelt
He was already dead. And we already tested the weapon.

Why would they attack? hmm?
People always panic about this shit but honestly, why the fuck would they attack here? We got nothing of worth for them and wars are expensive and bad image.
>inb4 they're crazy and want finland borders
fuck off

But it does. That war was justified the moment Finland, surprise-surprise, allied with Nazi Germany and invaded USSR in order to exterminate its population. I'm not defending Stalin and Finns fought bravely, but you lost that war and then promptly showed how justified it was.

We're entirely different than Ukrainians or Georgians, both training and equipment-wise.

They definitely could win for the virtue of being a much larger country.
It wouldn't be worth the trouble though

because all westerners are ebil fashisti and finland is western

>russian psychosis history

>They attacked us because we attacked them so that makes the initial attack justified
If their goal really was to exterminate Russians, why didn't they just expand a little bit further to close the siege around Leningrad?

>But if Finland isn't strategic to control, then why even bother taking land from it? Now all he did was pissing of Finland even more,
If you think Finnish leadership had any warm feeling for communists in 1930es, you must really not know your history

It's already said ITT, that in retrospect, pushing Finnish border back was a reasonable move. If Hitler opened in june 22 1941 with artillery on leningrad, shit would have been even worse for commies

it made sence to push finland back pre-war, it made sence to test the new army post-reform, it didn't make sence to occupy finland

it didn't make sence even in 1945

For fucks sakes, Finland wasn't allied with the Nazis when you attacked us in 1939.

It was the fucking Soviets who made a deal with deal with the damn Nazis. Just google Molotow-Ribbentrop-treaty.

If you think finns were nazis you must really not know your history. We did what we had to do, and it worked.
So fuck you slavshit :D:D:D

I'm not saying Russia is going to attack. I'm talking about how Finns perceive their chances today. Like do they think they could stop Russia today?

Also it possible NATO wont help Finland. We are previously said that we dont expect official help from Sweden and Finland (only Denmark) since we're actually not allied and vice versa.

really, dead? so that other guy then, thanks for correcting

if you don't like "test" then say "to send a message"

There really isn't any reason for ruskies to come liberate their russian minority in finland. Basically same goals could be achieved by invading baltics, with less cost and equipment.

Also our training is a lot better compared to georgia and ukraine

>Russian Imperial general
Mannerheim was such a badass

right now, same as in 1939, Finland has artillery that can reach Pietari.

They hold the whole huge city hostage, if Russia tries anything. Russia could probaly dismantle 0% of Finnish artillery, 100% of its airforce and 60% of its ground vehicles in about a week, but
1. there's too much risk
2. there's still no reason to invade Finland

>Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

VYESTERN CIA PRAPAGANDA

yeah he's pretty cewl

> 0% of Finnish artillery,
80%

Why do i never hear about naval warfare during Winter war? On sea, Russians would surely win eaasily

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Everyone knew you were going to ally with the Nazis. Which you did. That's why border needed to be pushed. Which it was. Finland is an Axis nation, you have no moral high ground.

...

>If you think Finnish leadership had any warm feeling for communists in 1930es, you must really not know your history
Why would a close to Russophile ally with a nation that just invaded two friendly neigbhors ((Denmark Norway)) to start a racial war against Russians?

>all I'm saying is Stalin eded up controlling land that was worth controlling for strategic reasons. i assume there is a sort of logic to his actions. I see no reason to conquer Finland.

It would be like Russia conquering Georgia in 2008. SUre we can, their army is broken and running, troops are near the capital. Why did Medvedev/Putin stop? Only because not stopping and retreating to Abkhazia/ S.Ossetia would have been stupid
But Mannerheim didn't even want Nazi troops around there, he let them fight in Northern Finland if I am not mistaken, and if I am not even more mistaken he despised Hitler.

Cos that sea was full of mines.

> right now, same as in 1939, Finland has artillery that can reach Pietari.

You do know your counter battery and EW and SIGINT capabilities showcased in Ukraine got the US to piss the themself. They believe they are outgunned in Europe. I cant really see Finnish artillary surviving that long.

>Naval activity during the Winter War was low. The Baltic Sea began to freeze over by the end of December, which made the movement of warships very difficult; by mid-winter, only ice-breakers and submarines could still move. The other reason for low naval activity was the nature of Soviet Navy forces in the area. The Baltic Fleet was a provincial coastal defence force which did not have the training, logistical structure, or landing craft to undertake large-scale operations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_warfare_in_the_Winter_War

>Everyone knew you were going to ally with the Nazis
How? What reasons did they have for it before losing all thatland to the USSR?

But you actually were allied with the Nazis in 1939 when you attacked us. How hypocrite can you be?

lol dumbass ruskie

I agree that Mannerheim wasn't any sort of Nazi, he's a Russian Imperial officer, he's lived in a multinational country and was an envoy to China, and probably Finland wasn't entirely comfortable with German troops. But Finnish-German alliance was a real possibility, considering how anti-commie the government was. Any anti-Russian alliance was a possibility.

I started asking first and googling second, alreaady reading through it

As much as i don't want to belittle Finish awesomeness, it seems this whole war was just prime example of utter Soviet incompetence