Re: Ukraine blames Karla's Red Partisan Momma for Holocaust
Anton
> On Jun 22, 3:37 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's the interesting bit here: Soviets brought new meanings to the
>> word "partisan". They attacked behind enemy lines villages that were in
>> Finland proper, not some Russo-Carelian ones occupied by the Finns.
>> There were 45 of these attacks and 181 persons died, the youngest victim
>> a 6 months old infant:
>> http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuvostoliiton_partisaani-iskut_Suomeen
>>
>> You can try http://translate.google.com
> I have never managed to get any on-line translators translate from
> Finnish, and I tried before. Would you please give me any more details
> as to where and when? In particluar, did this happen close to any
> Russian city like Leningrad or something? And when exactly?
No major city was close. This was further north. Kainuu and Lapland. The
villages (with the corresponding munipality in parenthesis) and the
dates are listed here:
>>>> Good thing your relatives were not part of that kind of activity.
>>> Of course they weren't. But two of my children's relatives on their
>>> mother's side were starved to death by the "brave" Finns and Germans
>>> when they blockaded Leningrad:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad
>> From the Finnish perspective the siege was rather a consequence than an
>> objective - due to geographical realities.
> Well, but the 1.2 million who starved to death may not understand all
> the subtleties why exaclty the Finns and Germans found it to me to
> their strategic advantage to kill them.
Finns advancement halted at the Karelian isthmus (west-northwest of
Leningrad) and the forces north of Ladoga did not advance south,
south-eastward of river Svir either, leaving 100 km of Ladoga shore for
the Russians. If the intention was to strangle Leningrad the Finns were
not doing a very good job. This fact is even recognized by most
Russians, including their regime at the time: the only place where the
encirclement "leaked" was at the direction where the Finns were. The
Finns could have complied to the German request and advance further
towards the city, but they refused.
>> North of Leningrad and Lake
>> Ladoga was border land. Some of the Finnish officers acted without the
>> authorization of the high command
> For more than two years in a row?!!!! Surely, it couldn't have taken
> the Finnish command 2 whole years to notice that their almost entire
> army was blockading the north side of Leningrad.
I'm not saying they had any intention to make efforts to help the
population there. The city happens to be south, south east of Karelia.
The Finns where fighting for their own objectives there. I suspect you
don't have any evidence for the "almost entire army" blockading the
north of the city? Most of the deciding battles between USSR and Finland
like the battle of Tali-Ihantala, went in east-west direction at the
southern parts of Karelia (west, north-west of Leningrad).
You can read about the Finnish involvement here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad#Finland_and_Germany
Both the Finnish and English Wikipedia mentions that Finns did not
advance towards the city any further than the old border west of the
city and north at river Svir (which borders to Russian East Karelia).
Finns did not shell or bomb the city either. An interesting observation
that the English version does not mention is the fact that the Finns,
refusing to advance towards the city, even refused the Germans to move
their troops through Finnish positions.
All this indicates that for the larger part the Finns considered this
battle as something between the Germans and the USSR and almost
exclusively made such decisions that kept their involvement to the most
minimum possible.
In short: Finns had little interest in Leningrad - in both good and bad.
> And of all people, the presumably noble former Russian Imperial hero -
> general Mannerheim, who in his younger years had sworn a solemn oath
> to defend innocent Russian civilians and had previously done so
> valiantly - should have known better.
Mannerheim was in the moderate camp as in dealing with Leningrad and
Russia. There were other more extreme views among some of the Finnish
political and military leadership. He was the guy saying "no" to most
requests made by th Germans.
> In any case, since my wife's relatives were Jewish, the surrender that
> you expect from Russia would have meant death to them at the hands of
> your German allies anyway. In fact, as I said, only 2 died. If the
> Russians had done what they never do - surrender - _all_ of her
> relatives, remaining in Leningrad, would have been dead. So, it may
> surprise you but I am glad that Russians never surrender. This save
> us, Jews.
I did not expect a surrender. I was merely processing different options.
Maybe the circumstances were different, but the way Viborg was
surrendered it happened in the order: first evacuate civilian
population, then withdraw the bulk of the troops out from the city.
> Moreover, how do you evacuate the huge metropolis of Leninglrad with
> the population of some 3 to 4 million (which was the size of entire
> Finland) out in a few days? The Russians did get as many people as
> possible:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_the_Siege_of_Leningrad_on_the_city
Ok, I might have been too optimistic as to the realistic possibilities
of evacuating the population.
>> I'm sorry about your relatives and other casulties. War is like that. I
>> wish nothing more than that it should be avoided as much as possible.
> And I agree. And maybe next time before you blame the partisans, you
> may ask if they were trying to save millions of innocent civilians in
> Leningrad or were venting their frustrations at their inability to do
> so.
Come on: I was only stating facts about the partisans. The Siege of
Leningrad is already a known and documented event, but the world needs
to know also everything, even the unpleasant facts, about the Soviet
partisans.
> As I said many times, I am sorry that USSR attacked Finland in 1940,
> and I beleive that the land taken then, should be now returned to
> Finland.
Well that would be a generous offer and a gesture of good will, but we
know a returning of the territories is hardly realistic. Returning of
the lands is not something most ordinary people think about either. I'm
however happy that some people with USSR origin feel this way. Official
Finland has no territorial demands to Russia and I suspect such wishes
will not be presented during my lifetime.
As I mentioned earlier the occupied territories could be assigned a
special status instead inside the Russian Federation so that descendants
of the original population could be allowed to by property there. This
would benefit culture and business of an otherwise backward, remote
corner of the country.
> But average Russians have already paid dearly for Stalin's
> offence with 1.2 million dead.
I'm sorry about that as in any case where human life is lost. However I
repeat: Finns were not interested in Leningrad - in both good and bad.
Finnish objectives were in Karelia. Even most Russian political leaders
and historians agree on that. (Karelia borders to Leningrad - it is a
geographical fact).
> In fact, I very much doubt if the
> number of civilian Finns, killed by Stalin (including whatever number
> of innocent Finns killed by partisans in WW2), is anywhere close to
> this horrifying figure of 1.2 million.
Hey: it isn't about some pissing contest. "Who has the higher pile of
corpses" or something like that.
> How long can a human being
> survive on 125 grams of bread per day?
Hadn't it been for a tiny hole on the "Finnsh side" of the encirclement
the ration would have been 0 grams.
--
Anton