Kaliningrad Before and After
Do you know a German philosopher Immanuel Kant? He left in easternmost part of Germany in the city called Konigsberg. Today this city is not called Konigsberg any more, it is Kaliningrad now, the most westernmost city of Russia and the things so are already for 60 years. After the WW2 this region came under the Soviet rule, together with so-much-discussed Estonia and other Baltic Countries. These countries are now independent, cutting the only on-ground roads and railroads leading to Kaliningrad, so now the city and the area around it is fully cut off from the Russian mainland but still stays the part of Russian Federation even it is separated so much from it. You can see Kaliningrad as a leftmost red dot on this map of Western Russia.
Here we have 23 pairs of photos of Kaliningrad from kng750.kanet.ru showing the city before the Russian rule and World War 2 in distant 1939 and nowadays, year 2005. You can make your own conclusions on how the WW2 affected the city, and how Russian rule affected it too.
| Tags: before-and-then, kaliningrad, nazi, russian history, russian-cities, ww2 |
if it's more convinient for you.
Our friends publish:Bloggers, send your links! |
Back to English Russia Main Page for more articles like this
Loading ...
This reminds me of Amarillo before and after the Mexican War.
how provincial.
Never mind the fact that Amarillo was founded 40 years after the Mexican war.
Stop using my screen name. I was here before you. I am the real Texas1!
That Boris must be using my screen name.
Yeah, sure.
Oh, comon! Konigsberg was almost totally destroyed by air attack. It is pity that Soviet Union had not annexed more territory of Germany. Germany started war that cost the lives of 100 millions of Europeans.
Koenigsberg was destroyed by air attacks of British pigs. I hate British Air Forces.
Dear Sarah Abranov, please remember that Germany AND Soviet Union started the second world war by attacking to Poland. Germany attacked 1.9.1939 and Soviet Union two weeks later. Poland, as well as the Baltic countries and Finland were divided by the two dictators, Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin (Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact). Only Finland succeeded to keep its independence, but the price of Winter War was high. Best regards Harri
Dear Harri, please remember that Poland started Polish War in 1604 by attacking Russia.
Dear Sarah, thank you for your reply. As far as I understood it was a guestion about the destroy of Konigsberg during the second world war. And in this connection you mentioned that Germany started the war. That is only a partial truth. The war started when the dictators of Germany and the Soviet Union made an agreement to divide the eastern part of the Europe. According to this agreement Germany got the western part of Poland and the Soviet Union got the eastern part of Poland, the Baltic countries and Finland. Unfortunately the unhappy conquests of the Soviet Union after the war has a reflection even to our days. I refer to the news of removal of a statue in Estonia. I am sure that it is hard to understand for Russians that Estonians do not want to keep a statue of the occupier in the middle of Tallinn. For Estonian people the statue is a synonym with occupier/killer/torturer/expeller.
Please do not understand me wrong. The people of the Soviet Union suffered heavily during the second world war and Germany made a lot of war crimes.
Of course we can also discuss about wars made hundreds of years ago but my knowledge about these wars is not so good.
Dear Harri,
the true is The Monument was placed just in front of the Estonian athorities, and how could the estonian nazzi goverment put up with sovie monument?
I’m sorry that russian sodiers gave their lives for nothing…
It’s just a provacation…teasing…
Dirty political game ..someone wants a cold war again so badly
Dear Sclange,
I am sorry my English is not best possible, but I did not understand the message copied under:
the true is The Monument was placed just in front of the Estonian athorities, and how could the estonian nazzi goverment put up with sovie monument?
Could you please clarify?
authorities
soviet
No no, I mean that the message on the whole sentence did not open to me. Could you please tell the message in other words?
the monument used to stand in front of the building of estonian goverment(Tynismyage squere).
so it was like a turture for the nationalist leader of Estonia to see the soviet soldier through the window
Now I understand your message. I try to answer: We must notify that the bronze soldier carries messages from two dictatorships: dictatorship from national socialist country and dictatorship from socialista country. These dictatorships are rather similiar, except that anothet lost the WWII and the other was part of the Allied Forces. For Russians the bronze soldier symbolizes defeat of nazi barbarism but for Estonian people it praises a triumphal procession of communistic barbarism. Russian people have to remember that for Estonian people the bronze soldier is the same soldier who came without invitation and occupied Estonia after the Molotov - Ribbentropp pact and the consent of nazi Hitler (1940). I am afraid that it is asked too much that Estonians should love a statue of the occupier of the country.
By the way. I saw a couple of days a go a short interview on Finnish TV given by a Russian citizen. She said that during the same days the bronze soldier was moved to a military cemetery of Tallinn, the Russian authorities moved a statue and remains of six Red Army soldiers of WWII from the village near Moscow. Two of the soldiers were pilots. The reason for transfer was a higway under construction. The remains of the soldiers were moved to a local mortuary, from where the remains vanished.
Respect for dead people seems depend on where they have been buried. In the light of western eyes it seems that the bronze statue serves also the internal policy of Russia.
In the end I must also emphasize that we are speaking only one statue and less than fifteen graves. I give a good example: When the Red Army attacked to Finland and occupied the Karelian Isthmus the purpose of the Soviet Union was inter alia to destroy the history of the Karelia. Places were renamed and so on. What was specially barbarian was the destruction of Finnish military and civil cemeteries. Cemeteries were transferred to grass and football fields, parking areas etc. In one military cemetery the destruction was specially barbaric. All the soil, including remains of dead, were transferred to dumping area. All what was left over the cemetery was two meters deep pit.
Delirium. Check, please
Siehe z.B. Gerd R. Ueberschär, Lev A. Bezymenskij (Hrsg.) Der deutsche Angriff auf die Sowjetunion 1941. Die Kontroverse um die Präventivkriegsthese. - Besprechung: von Joachim Hösler in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas Bd. 47 (1999) 602-603
Preventive war or not, the fact remains that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact divided Eastern Europe in a nazi and a Soviet sphere of influence, that the USSR and Germany divided Poland, and after that worked very closely together until june 1941 - delivery of essential war supplies (oil, grain) to Germany, exchange of prisoners… You don’t need to go over the whole controversial discussion about who planned to invade who to conclude that, while Germany was at war with Great-Britain and France, while Germany attacked Western Europe, while Germany was fightin in Northern Africa, the USSR was working together with Germany. And that gives the USSR a certain responsibility in starting World War II. And you don’t have to come up with an early 17th century Polish invasion as a lame excuse for that.
Dear Harri,
Formally, the WWII started on 01 Sep 39. although as the matter of fact some earlier… at least, when GB and France gave Czechoslovakia away to Hitler, having closed their eyes to the existence of the mutual-aid treaty between them.
Dear Elkman,
many things happened in the thirties about which many European countries cannot be proud of. When reading history it is evident that bigger nations did what they wanted to do and smaller did what they could do. Case Czechoslovakia is a good example of that. GB, France and Germany made an agreement according to which the whole country vanished in the end! The Soviet Union and Germany divided the Baltic Countries, Poland and Finland and these countries could only notify that half-secred agreement.
But I am afraid that only a little has been changed from those days. If “bad days” sometimes come again small countries are the ones which are in troubles first. Btw it is interesting to notice that rearmament has started again in Europe. Russia is increasing its military power, after some years monies spent to rearmament will exceed the value of the combined defence budgets of the EU countries. Russians are e.g. building 6-8 new submarines to the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea is a “mare nostrum” of the European Union, in other words it is a sea of peace. The countries in western Europe are doing the opposite, they are diminishing their armies.
Dear Harri,
In esence you are right. However, the situations about prewar Poland on one side and prewar Baltic States and Finland on the other side are different. Poland - yes, Soviets invaded to annex Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine that used to be a part of Russian Empire before October Revolution and had been conquered by Poland during troublous times in Russia.
Re Baltic States… We should not forget about the application for help in providing external securitiy and respective treaties (at least, with Estonia and Latvia) according to which certain quota of soviet forces was allowed to be housed in those countries.
Finland. Before Winter War there were long negotiations between USSR and Finland to the extent that USSR needed 2 or 3 harbours to allocate its naval bases (here, please, do not forget again about pre-revolution frontier of Russia). No agreement was achieved because Finish governmant did not want to meet half-way. That time it was (again) the matter of external security. The history shown it was a right decision, although a cruel one. If there was no Winter War, finish forces would have started their aggresion in 1941 from beloostrov, which was/still is only 30 km northward from Leningrad. One may say: “there was Soviet aggression in 1939, thus in 1941 it was just a “feedback” from Finland”… but… reading the history of relationship between Hitler’s Germany and Finland I do not believe that.
Dear Elkman,
I am afraid that our dialogue is useless. Our starting points are so different. As far as I understand international treaties, which include e.g. mutual understanding of the borders between countries, are meant permanent. It means that after signing a party of a treaty cannot demand harbours, towns or piece of lands from its neighbours by justifying its behaviour with “external security”.
The Winter War started when Stalin and Hitler had found a mutual understanding about dividing themselves inter alia Poland, the Baltic Countries and Finland. Finland did not want to give away its independency, that´s why the Winter War started. Only black propaganda can tell that a country with 4 million people would attact against a country with appr. 180 million people. As we know there were no relationships between Finland and Germany in 1939. Instead of that there was the non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany. Germany followed the pact strictly and did not allow its citizens to help Finland during the Winter War. E.g. German factories were not allowed to sell any material to Finland.
The Soviet Union stopped its aggression against Finland on 13.3.1940. Stalin was afraid of that France and the Great Britain would help Finland by sending army troops to fight for Finland. It is assumed that part of France-GB forces had marched to secure Swedish iron ore mines. That would have caused Germany to attact to Sweden; with the help of Soviet Union because, as stated above, they were allies at that time. The result of all that would have been the war between the Soviet Union & Germany on the one side and France & GB & the United States (later) on the other sides. Dictators against western democracies.
Well, as stated the Soviet Union stopped its attact against Finland. The final result of the Winter War and cession of Finnish territories was that Finland started desperately seek allies against the Soviet Union. Finns were afraid of new aggressions from east. The fear was not groundless, Molotov asked in August (if I remember right) 1940 from Hitler if the Red Army could finish its work in Finland. Hitler´s answer was (luckily to the Finns) that the war between the Soviet Union and Finland would be a burden to the relations between Germany and the Soviet Union.
After the summer 1940 the relations between Finland and Germany became better. The Finns were happy about that because Germany was the only country which could help Finland against the Red Army. France was collapsed in spring 1940 and the battle of Britain was going on. The United States was neutral. In those days Finland had to choose between plague and cholera.
When Germany attacked to the Soviet Union the Red Army started to bomb Finnish towns. The Continuation War started and Finns saw an opportunity to take back Finnish territories, including inter alia Viipuri town, which was the second important town in Finland in those days. It was really a beautiful town. Unfortunately those territories were lost again in 1944.
I personally hope that Russia would some day give back territories the Soviet Union took from Finland. I am sure that as a part of Finland Viipuri town would rise from its misery and become an important trade centre between Finland and Russia, especially Sankt Petersburg area.
Yes, dear Harri, our dialogue is useless indeed, because, as far as I can see you mix up all in one. Even relations between USSR and Baltic States and relations between USSR and Finland.
Hitler and Stalin had never divided Baltic Countries and more so Finland. USSR didn’t attempted independence of Finland. What Stalin wanted towards Finland is equal to the American BMD-system coming to Poland and Czech Rep. today. Although I dislike the latter, I don’t consider that like those countries being conquered by the USA. “Black propaganda” against USSR was (perhaps, still is) very popular as an integral part of Churchill’s history of WWII, but even without it… let me ask: who attacked to Leningrad from the north in 1941? Martians? Anyway, I have to frustrate you, my dear friend, - on the basis of the documents historians come to the conclusion that relationship of Germany and Finland takes its root yet in 1935, and as concerns 1939, of course, Hitler preferred to observe the pact recently signed with USSR… Finland was not of his interest that time but the potential war against the Soviets was. By the way, the same year 1935 there was another treaty between Poland and Germany according to which Poland had undertaken to be with Hitler in case of German aggression against USSR and would have been awarded with Ukraine, Byelorussia as well as Smolenskaya and Brianskaya Oblast according to that treaty. But I have already noted that, in particular, Poland prefers not to recall such things but to show themselves being white and USSR black.
On 13/03/40 the peace agreement was signed, and I have to remind that Finland asked for the peace but not Stalin. The policy of GB + France was extremely dangerous that time because in the war USSR + Germany vs. GB + France (even + USA) the latter would have no chance.
///When Germany attacked to the Soviet Union the Red Army started to bomb Finnish towns.\\\ I don’t want to be rough… but… complete bullshit. Even, please, think logically, USSR had much more important things to do during such a huge all-out attack of the Germans than bombing finnish cities. On 25 Jun 41 Finland declared to be at war with USSR and attacked (in fact even some earlier).
Russia will never give any territory to Finland because those territories used to be the part of Russia long before USSR, which used to be in favour of Finland. Otherwise, it would have already been conquered rather by Sweden yet in 18-19th century… and today there would be no country named Finland.
Dear Elkman,
I find that mixing relations between USSR and Baltic States and relations between USSR and Finland all in one is very reasonable and natural, because the destinies of the Baltic Countries were agreed in the side letter (”Secret Protocol”) of Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact.
Winter War started on 30.11.1939 when Finland was attacked by the Red Army. USSR claimed that Finnish artillery had bombed a Russian village called Mainila and (about) six soldiers were killed. In other words a nation of 4 million people attacked to a country with 180 million people. (Well, we have learned that small countries are always wrong/quilty. Later it was studied that Russian artillery or mortars were responsible for that fire punch)
The purpose of USSR was to occupy whole Finland in Winter War. Originally the time table was two weeks, there is evidence enough about this imperialistic war. So called Kuusinen Government (or the Terijoki Government) was founded by Stalin in December 1939. Mr. Kuusinen, who was pronounced the head of the Terijoki Government was a Finnish communist and the Terijoki Government was Stalin´s puppet regime. The Terijoki Government declared itself as a sole legal government of Finland. According to its 9 paragraph program the purpose of the “government” was inter alia to unite Finland and people in Karjala. Kuusinen Government published a newspaper called “Kansan Valta” (”People´s Power), newspapers were dropped from aeroplanes to the Finns.
USSR founded also Finland´s Peoples Army (FPA), which was scraped up Finnish speaking men from Karjala. FPA was not an operational unit, it was intented to be used e.g. as a parade unit when marching on the streets of Helsinki. The uniforms of FPA were robbed from Polish Army. In 21.12.1939 (Stalin´s birthday) almost 6.000 FPA men participated is a parade in Terijoki. In that day statesmen from abroad sent greetings to Stalin, Kuusinen´s greeting was published in the third place, after Hitler´s and Ribbentropp`s greetings.
USSR was kicked out from the League of Nations just after its attack to Finland. We can see what happened to the Baltic Countries in the years 1940-41, they were occupied, part of the citizens of these countries were expelled to Sibirien, part of the deportees were killed/murdered during deportation time. No wonder that boys and young men in the Baltic countries rather chose SS units than joining to Red Army in spite of atrocities made by Germany.
With the help of Kuusinen Government Stalin wanted to demonstrate that the Red Army did not attact to Finland but instead of that it was asked to help “legal government” to fight against “fascists”. Stalin had bad luck, Finns (and the whole western world) did not understand such nonsense. When Stalin understood that occupation of Finland was not an easy task he wiped out Mr. Kuusinen and started to negotiate again with the government of Finland.
You remind that Finland asked for peace but not Stalin (in 13.3.1940). Sorry to say but I do not understand your way of thinking. Of course Finland asked for and wanted peace! Finland wanted peace all the time during the whole Winter War! Finnish citizens couldn´t believe in 30.11.1939 that USSR would attack against its neighbours! They could not believe their eyes when without any warnings they saw Russian bombers in the sky of Helsinki. During the first air raid in 30.11.1939 91 persons (women, children, old people) were killed solely in Helsinki. One of the first victims was a girl under 10 years. 236 citizens were wounded, 36 of them badly.
B.t.w, abroad the air raids on civil targets made by USSR caused anger (comparison to Guernica destroyed by Luftwaffe was more than evident). The president of the USA (Roosevelt) made a wish that USSR would not bomb Finnish towns. Mr. Molotov lied to Roosevelt: The planes of USSR have not bombed and will not bomb towns but airfields, this state of affairs one cannot observe from America, at a distance of 8.000 kilometers.
Finland was not prepared to any kind of war during the thirties. After the recession national product was directed to improve living conditions of the citizens, not to weapons as happened in many other countries. That was a bad mistake, Finns were naive and trusted to Non-Aggression-Pact and peaceful speeches which in reality were only pieces of paper. Lack of defense costed Finnish blood. Many husbands and sons were killed in the front. In many cases the state could not give to reservists not even a uniform but only a belt, a cockade and a rifle.
After Winter War naivety was vanished from Finnish minds but unfortunately to them there was still a neighbour in the east who wanted to finish its unfinished work and nobody in the neighbourhood who was willing to help an exhausted country. When Germany attacked to USSR Finland had in reality no possibilities to avoid the start of the Continuation War. Due to USSR imperialistic policy towards its neighbours and in order to survive Finland had to choose between plague and cholera (men in the Baltic countries had the same problem). Germany was the only powerful country which could and wanted to help Finland. Finns saw what had happened to Balts and they did not want such a faith. Forests of Katyn and Sibirien were threats big enough. Besides there was a vast mutual understanding in Finland that citizens who lost their houses, lands and other property had to obtain their property back from USSR. Without the help of Germany Finland would have had no possibilities to survive.
Speaking about hypothetical war between USSR+Germany vs. France+GB+USA the result of that would have been clear to everyone. Nobody could ever have won USA in those days, and the situation is the same today.
Comparison the Winter War to peaceful negotiations between USA and Poland & Czech Republic is grotesque. These countries know very well that USA is the only power which can help them is bad days shall some day come back.
Speaking about territories and towns robbed by Russian I agree with you. Repair of injustices of e.g. Winter War and Continuation War would require total rethinking and evaluation of policy, intentions, actions etc. of USSR from twenties to these days. Unfortunately there is no sight of this kind of re-evaluation.
I notice that historical facts are unfortunately not even today acknowledged by state authorities in Russia today. This is sad. Please study the following links concerning USSR bombing Finnish towns on 25.6.1941. You are also welcomed to a Finnish aviation museum to see parts of a Russian SB 2 bomber, which was shot down just on 25.6.1941.
**Boxes and english summary from article Jatkosodan alun neuvostopommitukset/Soviet bombing raids during the initial phase of the Continuation War, co-researched in Finland/Russia by Geust/Hazanov.**
http://www.byterapers.com/~grendel/scan/historia/soviet_bombings_june_25th_1941_in_finland-1.jpg
http://www.byterapers.com/~grendel/scan/historia/soviet_bombings_june_25th_1941_in_finland-2.jpg
http://www.byterapers.com/~grendel/scan/historia/soviet_bombings_june_25th_1941_in_finland-3.jpg
http://www.byterapers.com/~grendel/scan/historia/soviet_bombings_june_25th_1941_in_finland-4.jpg
http://www.byterapers.com/~grendel/scan/historia/soviet_bombings_june_25th_1941_in_finland-5.jpg
http://www.byterapers.com/~grendel/scan/historia/soviet_bombings_june_25th_1941_in_finland-summary.jpg
http://www.byterapers.com/~grendel/scan/historia/soviet_bombings_june_25th_1941_in_finland-sources.jpg
As summarized, following Soviet units partitipated in raids into Finland on 25.6.1941:
* 4 SAD
35. SBAP
38. IAP
50. SBAP
63. SBAP
* 1 SAD
137. SBAP
145. IAP
147. IAP
* 2 SAD
2. SBAP
44. SBAP
58. SBAP
* 5 SAD
7. IAP
153. IAP
* 41 AD
10. SBAP
201. SBAP
202. SBAP
205. SBAP
* 55 SAD
72. SBAP
VVS KBF:
* 8 BABr
1. MTAP
57. AP
* 10 SABr
73. AP
VVS SF:
72. AP
118. MRAP
**In total VVS lost 24 SB-2 bombers and two I-153s in Finland on 25.6.1942, of which 22 SB-2s were shot down by Finnish fighters.**
You ask who attacked against Leningrad from north in 1941. They must have been Martians if you say so. From historic point of view it is clear that nobody attacked against Leningrad from north. Finns only took back what belonged to them (please study the paragraphs of the Tarto Peace Treaty 1920) i.e. Karelian Isthmus which was lost after USSR attack during Winter War. As you know very well Finns did not cross the real border line between Russia and Finland (river Sestra), which was the border line agreed upon the the terms of Tarto Peace Treaty. Distance between Sankt Petersburg and Sestra is 35 kilometers so no attacks were maid against Leningrad from north.
I understand from your message that Russia denies the existence of the Secret Protocol of Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact, where Germany and the USSR divided Poland, the Baltic Countries, Bessarabia and Finland. The Pact and the Protocol was found from archives of Germany after WW II but the USSR claimed that they are false. The existence of the Protocol has not been called into question in historiography except in USSR (which was understandable). As far as I remember right the existence of the Protocol was not denied anymore when Mr. Jeltsin held power. According to your message Russia has returned to the “old truth”.
I am interested to know if there are more black pages in today´s historiography of Russia. Could you please tell me what is the official truth in Russia today about:
- murders of Polish officers in Katyn forest, and
- Mainila Shots, which were mentioned above?
As you perhaps know German forces found graves of ca. 20.000 Polish officers in Katyn Forest in Poland. The USSR claimed over 40 years that Germany had killed the officers during WW II. It was Mr. Gorbatshow in the eighties, who at last confessed that the Red Army had made the murders.
USSR claimed decades that it was Finland who bombed Mainila village. If I remember right so during Mr. Jeltsin`s period Russia admitted the truth.
Now when Mr. Putin is holding power I am interested in to know what is the official truth in Russia about those tragic incidents?
I am interested to hear more about the development of the relations of Finland and Germany from the year 1935 to 1939. I understand that you want to say implicitly that those relations were deeper than normal relations between two countries. I am interested also to hear more about the treaty between Poland and Germany in the year 1935.
Dear Harri,
If you don’t mind I would concentrate on your last questions as the most essential part of your message. The reason is that I do not understand why you needed to write so much about unhappiness and innocence of honest-to-God and harmless Finnish people. Such lyric is inappropriate here. The history knows enough examples when “little but proud” nations aggressed against bigger countries. More so, Finland used to aggress against Russia in the period from 1919 until 1939 quite often, having felt France & GB to be behind/with them. That’s the fact.
In order to put the point in the issue of Baltic States’ destiny, yes, according to the “Secret Protocol” it had been agreed that Germany would not interfere relations (whatever they would be) between Russia and those countries, but they have never been divided. That’s the nuance…
You are not very convincing with regard to the incident near Mainila. Between that incident and start of the war, there was a number of events most important of which was exchange of the official notes. Soviet statement was clear: 4 dead; 9 wounded. Statements made by Finnish soldiers are contradicting to each other 1) in view of sequence and intervals of the shots; 2) during several years Soviets protested that Finland did not want to record all frontier incidents and, suddenly(!), such a detailed record of this particular event; 3) Mannerheim declared that the Finnish artillery had been moved away from the frontier (what a strange thing… just imagine: overall mobilization of the forces and artillery… the guns are installed, fixed and masked… but the Commander-in-Chief orders to bring it away to the extent that it can not shot to the frontier line (needless to say beyond the frontier line), which means to leave the infantry without any support… and, at the same time, fortification works, road mining etc. continue). Shall I mention that after the start of the war in a couple of days Finnish artillery met the Soviets with full-power fire without any problem in view of the distance? In particular, on 30 Nov 39 a Soviet troop fell under the fire of Finnish anti-tank battery in 5 km away from Mainila (perhaps, one of those guns was involved in the above frontier incident).
Both Finland and USSR needed the war. The former one – in order to expand their territory upon assistance of France and England (what they were about to succeed in 1919 but were kicked out by the Red Army); the latter one – in order to resolve strategic issues. However the history of their relations shows that the Soviets were even more peaceful than the Finns.
Of course, the USSR was kicked out from the League of Nations. All “developed capitalistic countries” hated that country and they only needed a cause. Very interesting wording: “a part of the citizens”. That part over all three Baltic Countries was: 14 467 arrested + 25 711 expelled. And know what… the same story as with Stalin’s repressions in Russia. Everybody think that all these “victims” were guiltless, while up to 75 % of them were real jailbird. But nobody wants to scrutinize the statistics being sure it is lying. I will never understand “young men” who preferred to join SS which atrocity was incomparable.
Your interpretation of Molotov’ reply to Roosevelt is not quite correct, but it doesn’t matter. In essence I agree with Molotov. Despite of my personal great respect to President Roosevelt, it is very easy just to express the wish form the other ocean shore without complete understanding of the local situation… And this mistake of the American government is taking place all the time and even today. By the way, they should first look at themselves. Who pushed all the Japanese into the camps after Pearl-Harbour? Americans did…
Germany never wanted to help Finland. Their target was to occupy… everything. And after USSR (if they won) Hitler would have conquer Finland. But Finns had a choice: to help Hitler or to stay neutral. They preferred the former. On 23 Jun 41 Molotov tried to find out the attitude of Finland in that war in view of the facts that Finns allow the germans to use finnish airfields, sea harbours and territory and the basin to aggress against USSR, without mentioning Finnish planes violating Soviet frontier. Plus the frontier incident on 24 Jun 41. Soviet bombing was targeted to air bases (first of all, the ones with presence of the German planes). Yes there were civil victims… but it is impossible to avoid it. By the way, I do not represent Russian authorities; however, I join them to the extent of non-acknowledgment of various historical falsities like annexation of the Baltic States.
You wrote: “Nobody could ever have won USA in those days, and the situation is the same today”. This is the greatest western fallacy whatsoever. The USA even does not know what the real war is because to send limited forces to Europe to participate in finalization of the war is one thing but when you territory, your land becomes the battlefield is something absolutely different. And, please, don’t refer to their Civil War since it is just a miserable incomparable thing in view of WWII-events. By the way, were the Americans invincible in Vietnam?
I’ve never compared negotiations between USA and Poland & Czech Republic to the Winter War, but to the negotiations preceding the winter war. Two different things.
Quote:
These countries know very well that USA is the only power which can help them is bad days shall some day come back.
Unquote
Isn’t it something extremely familiar? This is exactly the way how “annexation” of the Baltic Countries by the USSR started.
Perhaps, there is a misunderstanding. I thought my message was clear: USSR would not have undertaken any actions in the north if Finns had been really neutral.
Attack is not equal to assault, at least to the extent of my understanding of English (which is far not perfect). Anyway, apart from terminology, you understand my message. By the way, Sestra is a front stabilization line but Finns used to move further several times by had not succeeded. I agree that many of the Finns did not want to move forward, and Mannerheim refused to assail Leningrad, however this decision had been taken not because of his nobility but through a number of objective reasons. And the first of them is Finns’ inability (no experience) to assail strong fortifications. Their tactic in the beginning of the war demonstrates it pretty well. Whereas the way southward from Beloostrov was fortified very good and any assault would have turned a real meat grinder. In addition, All Finnish strategic reserves were exhausted by that time.
Russia does not deny the existence of the Pact nor the Secret Protocol. However there used to be so many various historical “discoveries” and “revelations” during Perestrojka and Jeltsin’s age which appeared to be just garbage.
As concerns your questions about Mainila and Katyn, I described the former above; while the latter is not as clear as you try to expound. Whatever statements Gorbachov used to make, he was/is an idiot. So far no one can explain why Soviets shot Polishes with German weapon. And the fact is that bullets were German. The authorities confess nothing as long as Poland gives any reasonable clarifications in this respect. There is another Russian question awaiting Polish answer: where are 60 000 Soviet soldiers and officers taken prisoner in 1920 during the warfare close to Warsaw? Apparently, they “simply” disappeared in captivity.
In more details about Fin-Ger relationship in 1935-39 will come in a separate message. Because it is not very easy to find any time to type replies during working days. Pol-Ger treaty is coming along with it.
But….
“///When Germany attacked to the Soviet Union the Red Army started to bomb Finnish towns.\\\ I don’t want to be rough… but… complete bullshit.”
Now that you was given proof that indeed Soviet Union’s air force attacked Finland on 25.6., you completely dismiss the whole topic and try to sneak in other matters.
A complete failure by you and surrender without conditions. Accepted
The reality is that WWII began after WWI in Trianon, and Versailles, France.
Of French pressure, the U.S. and Britain have been approved a peace in Europe, after which the road has led straight to WWII.
Soviet Union should have invaded all Eurpe, including Spain (so we would have got a nazi-friend/fascist dictator from 1939 to 1975) and have annexed all republics to the USSR, this way, nowadays the whole world would be communist.
Yes because as Cuba and Russia proved, Communism is a great form of government. /sarcasm
shut uuuuuuup please..
no country in the world has ever had a cummunism regime.
They were socialistic…you can achive communism bij literally read karl marx’s theory.None of te country’s could achive his theory.
totally agree…..
PeterNorthland has cummunism, I heard it kicks ass.
That’s not really true. There is a spectrum of communism-socialism-capitalism that a country falls in, but it can be definitely said that the USSR, Cuba, etc. had\have a communistic government. Sure, it might not be 100% Marx-that would be difficult to achieve (such as China), but it’s closest to being communist.
Socialist countries (many people confuse the USSR of being one, although that’s complete bullshit) are some European countries such as Finland, Sweden, etc. Obviously they are much different than “communist” countries.
Technically you can say a country is not completely communist, but it would not be socialist either.
Before using any of the conventional terms, I would suggest to familiarize with their definitions. This would give you a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
You won’t believe how little you know about the subject.
i believe the same goes for you
Thanks, I’ve already read the articles.
What you call “socialism” is called “social democracy”. Finland is not a socialistic country.
And who says that Russia didn’t proof that communism is a good thing??
This is my point of view:
If a country is poor…then communism is the best thing to happen fot that country.All people have work…education sports and healthcare is free.For example in some African country’s there’s maybe 0,001% of the population that has ALL the money…while the other 99,999% cant’s get food clean water education and healthcare.
On the other side…if a poor country has devolped istself with enough middle class population..then i think capitalism is the best thing for the country.
Back to Russia: Before the revoltion Russia was one of the poorest and underdeveloped country’s in the world.
After the revoltion BOOOOOM!!! USSR=supermarcy
And now it has devoleped itself and the economy can grow bigger with the capitalistic system.
Thats my opinion.
>no country in the world has ever had a cummunism regime.
If you suggest that soviet communist experience is not true communism, so I don’t want to imagine the ‘true communism’.
Maybe there was it in Kambodia(Kampucha) ? There were 25% of population killed by communist regime of Red Kmehrs.
>They were socialistic…you can achive communism bij
>literally read karl marx’s theory.
I’ve read Karl Marx key ‘magnum opus’ - ‘Capital’. I read it for more than 20 years ago, when I was 17 y.o.. In fact, it was only leftist book when I’ve met a logical reasoning. But the logical reasoning was logical there only to the key communist idea … there was a pseudo-logical argue that worker salary in capitalism can not be higer then the cost of base food, base flat cost and base education. The argue was on on several pages. If we know that difference of some country salary levels was big in Marx times and in next century there were somwhere much bigger, so we should know about the ‘value’ of Marx argue. Just bullshit of man who couldn’t understand the economy and the capitalism.
The majority of many strange theories is simple the lack of understanding of the reality.
Darek so you suppose a capitalistic revolution for Russia was a better option after WW1? I really don’t think so.
a beautifull blond with blue eyes and big tits smiled at me and gave me a shot of whiskey in my 5 minute stay in Amarillo
Small parts of the town has improved, but too much destroyed. That’s a shame.
I visited this “4th Baltic republic” (That´s how Kaliningrad people like to call themselves) two years ago and I liked the place a lot. I have to say that I was expecting really multiproblematic place, but the area was more or less like any eastern european country. And it was so clean compared to “continental Russia”! Actually it was the british airforces, not soviet ones which bombarded and destroyded the old city, Kant-cathedral and the castle. Anyhow place worth visiting.
Oh… these images are so chilling, I think I’m gonna cry… The ruthless bolshevik occupants destroyed the flourishing city of Koenigsberg my ass! The Medieval Koenigsberg Castle, pictured on many of the images, was blown to pieces by the Brits (i.e. the Royal Air Force) in 1944, i.e. when the Soviets were still hundreds of kilometers away. By the way, these bombing raids probably destroyed the famous Amber Room which was stolen by the Germans from Tsarskoe Selo in 1941 and valished off the face of the Earth. Besides, you should see what the Germans did to my hometown of St. Peterburg in the 900 days of the siege - the Piskarevskoe memorial cemetery alone has 500 thousand people who died of hunger and air-raids during the siege - that’s 1.6 times more than the entire pre-war population of Koenigsberg, you ignorant knuckleheads. “Too much destroyed. That’s a shame…blah-blah” - read some books and watch some documentaries how the German SS would flock entire villages into a barn, set it ablaze, and sent pictures of burning villagers to their Bertas and Juttas back in Heimat. Sorry, no sympathies there!.. Piterec
Königsberg never was russian town (exclude 6 years 1757-1763).
Yeah, it was not Russian but Prussian! I don’t see much difference.
Prussian = German, you ignorant idiot
Prussian is not German. Prussians were Slavic tribe, killed by evil Germans.
Not Slavic (like Russians, Polish etc.) but Baltic like Lithuanians and Latvians. But yes, they were conquered by the Teutonic Knights (a German order) in the middle ages, and the later “Prussian Empire” was German.
In fact, Prussian (a Baltic nation) was exterminated by Crusader Knights (Order of Hospital of German Hause of Santa Maria in Jerusalem). The Knigts were invated by Mazovia Prince (in 13th centuries Poland was divided on several Princelands) in order to pacify a ‘bad’ neighbour of Mazovia.
The stupid inviting was big with consequences. The Crusader Knights exterminate Prussian (the true Prussian) and became the enemy to re-united Poland. In this way, there was appeared the beginning of German existency on those lands.
After the fighting in Grunwald in 1410, the (Crusader) Prussia lost independency and became the fief of Polish King. It was till 18th century and next … Russia, Prussia and Austria divided Poland on three parts.
What NATO really wants is to re-check the results of WWII and take Kalinigrad away from Russia.
Where have you hear such nonsense ?
From Putinoccio, probably.
Actually, Koenigsberg, by international agreement, was supposed to be administrated by USSR only for 50 years after WWII. What are you russians still doing there? Get the f**k out!
Alaska was lend to USA…time’s up too
when will Russia get it back??????????
Yeah USA white house, CIA and pentagon is resident evil ! Destroy USA !
A report filed by one Karl Potrek of Königsberg states, in part:
“… down the road stood a cart, to which four naked women were nailed through their heads in a cruciform position. … parallel to the road stood a barn, and to each of its two doors a naked woman was nailed through the hands in a crucified posture. In the dwellings we found a total of 72 women … children and one old man … all dead. … some babies had their heads bashed in.”
Fuck the Germans! They are evil Nazis!
Sorry to be a spoil-sport, but Kaliningrad poses one of the most critical environmental catastrophes incoming. The citizens are advised not to drink tap water, and the reason is there is NO functional water treatment plant existing.
There has been a project since 1997 in co-operation with a Swedish company SWECO to build a new water treatment plant, but for some mysterious reason, nothing, absolutely nothing valuable have been achieved till today.
All the filth flows straight into Baltic Sea, the seabed is virtually dead in area reaching out 3 km:s (2 miles) from the shore.
Shame shame shame.
Yes, they’re destroying the Baltic Sea both there and at St. Petersburg. The biggest shame is that they’re not the only ones who will suffer because of it, their portion of the coast is very small.
After the city nice todays sucks is incredible not have new builds.And build very olders :S
Anna’s right - it is all about the spheres of influence and squeezing the Russians out of the few places where they still have some influence (”thanks” to Gorby the Spotted Moron). If you let the stinking Bushists stick their fuzzers in one hole, they’re gonna start pouring in like diarrhea from all over the place… As to Koenigsberg having never been the Russian city - so what? Two hundred years ago there wasn’t a single pale face north-west of the Great Lakes - only Native Americans, there were more Poles in the Vilnius area than Lithuanians, and half of Georgia was under the Persian rule.
And Snowghost - maybe you should instead tell your fellow countrymen to get the fudge out of Iraq, Afghanistan and a few dozen other “spheres of American/British influence”!
Well, what can I say looking at the pictures? Today Kaliningrad, on my vew, is more colorful, compared to all that black and white Koenigsberg. Some old building are lost to the war. As I learned from this page that was British air raids that destryed them. Of course Russians could have that done too. Simply the British were firster.
Well, it was German territory of course. But Russians took it as a troffey. The Allies agreed. The finder the keeper. It could be not a bad idea to give the territory back to Germans. Fair, at least. But it would create the precedent of changing borders in postwar Europe. Koenigsberg is only the smaller part of the former Eastern Prussia. The Poles got the bigger chunk of it. So they would have to give it back to the Germans too, together with their today’s western lands (Breslau, Shtetsin, Silesia). And Poles would demand their former lands from the Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuinia back. Too much of hassles.
For Russia it is a better idea to keep the region in Russian possesion. Russia needs more of a the Baltic coast than just Sanct-Petersburg. The Gulf of Finland is too narrow and controlled by Estonia and Finland. Russian fleet can be easily locked in “the bottle”. Kaliningrad is a good place to deploy air forces, nukes and missles. Espesially now, when Poland and the Baltic states entered NATO.
It’s me, Pronin again.
Re: Comment by FireFox
2007-05-03 02:08:55. That report filed by one Karl Potrek …naked women were nailed through their heads in a cruciform position… Typical war propaganda. Karl Potrek got it from Goebels speeches. Or rumors spread by scared refugees, who got them from other refugees, and so on. That was war, and lots of refugees looking for shelter and sympathies.
I know Russians. They could fuck up the poor women if their commander let them, yes. But crussify somebody? Never! No such a single case in the whole Russian history. They are too god-fearing.
To those, like FRESCO, who say that Russia is destroying the place.
Not at all. There was a period of total decline in Russia, in 90-th. It is over. Russia got money. Lots of new developments in Kaliningrad. The city is booming. If you can read in Russian here is BBC reporter’s material about the boom.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/international/newsid_6058000/6058966.stm
The only think I do not like is the name of the city. Kalinin was a jerk. Let’s rename it Putingrad?
heh deporting the people to Siberia or scaring them away, then bring in Russian colonists to inhabit the land. This is a big injustice done and Russia is no better then nazi Germany. This applies to Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and all other ex USSR countries. There would be no problem there today if Russian colonists weren’t brought in to Russify and subjugate the local population. You call them fascists because they are oppressing people that weren’t suppose to be there in the first place. Russians don’t belong in Europe, they have cold hearts and they belong in frozen Russia. Everywhere they go they cause trouble. They call Estonians fascists, when they are killing African students in the streets, deport Georgians, ban different foreign products to make a political statement and ban people from ex-USSR countries from selling vegetables in markets.
=)
you’re the victum of mass media
do you have your own oppinion?
Do you know anything about Russia????
Estonia as many others little countries lives for EU money.
Who are these countries without BIG BROTHER???
10% of Estonian GDP comes from Russia.
Do you know what these 10 % for estonian bloated economics mean????
Let’s see
Please keep silent if you’re ignoramus
I liked your post, Pronin
The idea to show pictures of a great German-style city turned into Soviet/then Russian style is great.
I knew that Kaliningrad was going bad, specially due to the lack of infrastructure and connection to Russia. But nice to know things are now going better.
I hope English Russia can show us more posts like that.
Example: Kazakstan beforesoviet, during soviet and after soviet times. Including abandoned baikonur
Thanks for appresiation, Poltava.
I foung the same material in English.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6048708.stm
Yea… Kazakhstan…
Why did you pick Kazakhstan? Have any connection?
Poltava, as far as I know, is a little bit in another place.
I was born in Alma-Ata, and had been living there for 40 years. (Now in the USA).
Lots of changes there too.
http://www.infokz.com/photo/index.php?ord=list&ras=city
No, any connection. Just an example.
Because Kazakstan was very very influenced by soviet policies and then was left behind, just like other republics.
Nothing to do with Poltava.
ustedes son una puta mierda para que quitan espcio en donde puede haber una pag porno HIJOS DE LA GRAN PUTA MALPARIDOS
this entire site is fascinating, im very drawn to the things here, although i cant articulate why. this particular section reminds me of what it looks like here in detroit. the beautiful crumbling buildings half torn down, or torn down and left to rot or a weedy parking lot and concrete barriers put up in the place of them, yet other buildingss are perfectly preserved and/or revered. i wonder, do russian folks feel at home when they drive around detroit proper? and im not being flip
To FireFox and all other brainwashed knuckleheads and pro-Bush fascists out there: the Potrek’s report on the so-called “Nemmersdorf massacre” and all other “accounts of the Russian atrocities” in East Prussia - where are eye-witness accounts, where are photographs, where are authenticated military operative reports? There is nothing out there to confirm that it is the Russians who did it. That is precisely why most of the historians worldwide (!) now agree that it was orchestrated by Goebbels’s in an attempt to boost the morale and make the East Prussian hold the frontline till the last one of them drops dead. (See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemmersdorf_massacre).
I cite, “After 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union, new sources became available and the dominating view among scholars became that most of the massacre was actually set up under the command of Goebbels, in an attempt to stir up civil resistance before the advancing Red Army.”
One platoon of Nazi Fallschirmjaegers - and done deal. Which explains why there are no documents to confirm these “Russian atrocities” in Prussia and plenty of documents to put any such claims in serious doubt. As to the German atrocities against Slavs, Gypsies and Jews on the Soviet territory - there is no shortage of documents confirming these, including even “war souvenirs” - keepsake photos taken by Nazi douchebags next to their victims - hung, burning or shot - see, for example:
http://www.khatyn.by/en/genocide/expeditions
http://www.khatyn.by/en/genocide
If you do not know squat about history and have never been to Russia - shut the fudge up! Yakov Sannikov
The main destruction was occurred by British aircraft.
It very beautiful and growing city at now.
PS I living in Kaliningrad
Sorry, but: What a butt ugly city! Everything which is beautiful is pre-war. The Rest is simply trash.
i agree
Great pictures, but do the right thing and return Kaliningrad to Germany.
This post tells us what we already know: that Russia is a shithole compared to Germany.
What dose this have to do with Kaliningrad?
随着我国物流业（货架）的快速发展，整个华东地区物流业托盘的发展也正以物流服务塑料托盘提升到较国内其他地区更高的地位而推进。重视具有提升区域物流托盘效率功能的专业化和标准化物流
塑料托盘基础设施建设，打造整体物仓储笼流服务平台。
南京海佩货架公司将积极推行物流仓储笼业标准化战略，建立健全仓储物流铁托盘服务标准化体系，加快推进物流
铁托盘装备设施、信息系统、经营管理、服务提供等的标准化，打造最
先进的仓储设备交易数码港，争取成为国内物流业标准化建设的典范。
近年来，我国物流业发展迅速，物流塑料托盘业增加值持续上升，已成为推动国家经济持续发展的重点产业。与此同时，物流仓储笼业面临运输和仓储钢托盘成本高昂、产业形态相互割裂等问题，亟需推行标准化战略，以降低成本，
提高效率提升服务质量，满足产业提档升级的需要。”
南京海佩货架公司是对物流钢托盘标准化比较重视的公司之一，实施标准化的速度也块。在标准体系研究中注重与很多仓储笼公司进行合作，将重点放在标准的国际通用型上。目前，海佩已经提出了包括物流
铁托盘模数体系、
集装箱的基本尺寸、物流钢托盘用语、物流仓储笼设施的设备基准、输送用包装塑料托盘的系列尺术、包装用语、钢托盘大型集装箱、
塑料托盘用箱、平托盘、仓储笼，卡车车厢内壁尺寸，
铁托盘等。
as far as i could see
there is a lack of info
the story with monumnets is finished in estonia….the wave goes furhter
and the thing is in Moscow they realy replace the monumnet and at very begining they planned to replace it..the didn’t in estonia ..just after the resononce they did…but anyways
i don’t know who supports the site but for sure the information that appears here shows one side
seems that someone trys to make worse the situation in the word stage
the whole day i was reading the comments….
buaaaa
sometimes people make such stupid comments that i havo no words just emotions…
There is a wonderfull Russian saying (in free translation): “A baby can exercise whatever it wants if only it does not cry”. In other words, if this attitude makes you happy then get a flag and be happy. While I continue insisting that such formulation ///When Germany attacked to the Soviet Union the Red Army started to bomb Finnish towns\\\ is a complete bullshit. Bacause the subtext of this wording in the whole context of the message is more than clear for any attentive reader (which apparently you are not :)): the Soviets started to bomb Finnish towns WITHOUT A REASON as soon as the Germany attacked USSR; while, as the matter of fact, prior to bombing USSR checked whether the Finns were really neutral or not, without mentioning (again) their frontier provocations.
By the way, I even did not look through that part of Harri’s message and clicked no links because that is not of my interest since I know this info perfectly
Amen
Am I banned? Why cann’t I see my reply?
Sorry my late message. I have been busy during last weeks.
Well well, my dear friend Elkman. I find that from Russian point of view your approach on Winter War is the one and only. What else could you say if you cannot say ” sorry we made wrong”. Being silent on “Bullshit” bombings, Terijoki Government and Finlands Peoples Army you admit the existence of these organisations and the plans of USSR to destroy Finland as an independent country.
Reason why I told you about conditions in the thirties in Finland was not to ask any sympathy, but to tell to you about overall life in Finland in those years and what kind of injury and destruction Winter War and Continuation War brought about.
With all respect your message about Finlands aggressive behaviour towards USSR does not base on reality. Your message might be the fact in Russia (only) but not in the other countries. Your message does not affirm any historians but perhaps only some Russian people. The historiography of USSR needed reasons for imperialistic war. I would be happy to see some examples of hostile acts and some indications that Finland imagined to get back up, if necessary, from Great Britain and/or France. I prefer examples of hostile acts from 1925-1939. The reason for limitation is that from mid twenties the aftermath of coup d tat in USSR was over, civil wars in USSR and Finland were over and the authorities in both countries had consolidated their power. Besides one can think that Winter War would be justified only if aggression is fresh enough. Please give also examples about little but proud nations aggressions against bigger countries.
After coup d tat in 1917 and later especially in the thirties the authorities and citizens of Finland were of course worried about its eastern neighbour. The citizens of USSR were under harsh treatment, rumours about imprisonments, gulags, death sentences, starvation etc. were heard. According to latest statistics 20-40 million citizens died because of actions of Mr. Stalin, so we can admit that worry in Finland was not groundless. Claims about Finlands aggression against Russia remind very much of claims of treasonable acts of numerous Russian citizens in favour of western countries in the thirties. Worry and mistrust is a different thing than aggression.
You wrote that “Finland used to aggress against Russia”. I suppose that in this context you mean behaviour of the President and the Government of Finland, because they were (and are today) responsible about foreign policy of Finland. Finland is, and was of course also in those days, a country ruled by a parliamentary government. Foreign policy (including policy on neighbour countries) of the Government is controlled by the Parliament of Finland. This means that the vast majority of the citizens of Finland have to accept actions of the Government and the President. Now, think rationally and get loose old USSR propaganda. How could the President, the members of the Government of Finland and vast majority of citizens ever accept such a policy. About half of the citizens in Finland were socialists. Finland was not ruled by any dictator like in Germany, USSR or Italy, who could manipulate the minds of citizens. Free communication in a country, where one man/party/other organisation controls newspaper, radio, TV etc. is only a dream. A country with democratic rules does not act this way. There are no documents, no recollections of statesmen, no studies in or outside Finland, absolutely nothing that should support this kind of claims. Years have rolled on and there are no reasons why to hide anything like this. If Finland had aggressive intents against USSR why it should have failed its defence, a life insurance of (every) country? Back up from west is not an answer good enough.
It is a surprise to me if some Russians even today believe the historiography of USSR concerning Mainila shots and Katyn forest, they must be true believers. Or are you just kidding us readers? Just in case if you are in earnest I have copied below an article from Wikipedia, the content of the article is selfexplanatory.
The Shelling of Mainila was a military incident on November 26, 1939, during which the Soviet Union’s Red Army initiated shooting at the Russian village of Mainila (situated near Beloostrov) while pretending that the shelling originated from Finland on the other side of the nearby border and claiming losses in personnel, thus getting a great propaganda bonus that launched the Winter War four days later.
According to the archives of Soviet party leader Andrei Zhdanov, the entire incident was orchestrated in order to paint Finland as an aggressor and launch an offensive. The Finnish side disclaimed responsibility for the attacks and identified Soviet artillery as their source indeed, the war diaries of the nearby Finnish artillery batteries show that Mainila was out of range of all of them, as they had been withdrawn previously to prevent such incidents.
However, in the days following the Shelling of Mainila, the Soviet propaganda machine generated publicity about other fictitious Finnish aggressions, renounced the non-aggression treaty with Finland, and on November 30, 1939 launched the first offensives of the Winter War.
Recently after declassifying the related military documentation it was confirmed that the daily reports from troops dislocated in the area did not report any losses in personnel during the time period in question, thus proving the forgery.
In 1998, President of Russia Boris Yeltsin denounced Soviet’s aggression towards Finland, agreeing that the Winter War was a war of aggression.
As you perhaps know USSR refused a proposal to establish an international committee to study who shot the Mainila shells.
There are several international studies about Katyn massacre. It seems that everyone else but Russia has the opinion that USSR murdered Polish soldiers. In this point I refer to articles of Wikipedia and CIA`s exhaustive articles. If you have different opinions I hope that you have also something else to say but “western propaganda etc”. Propaganda of USSR/Russia authorities must be good if citizens really every time believe such explanations.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/winter99-00/art6.html#rft20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Massacre#Prelude
You mention in your message the year 1919. I believe that you refer to events what Finns call Heimosodat (Kinship Wars). Please note that Finnish Government did not send any troops to fight in Karjala in 1919. Those men were volunteers and acted as private persons. Below I have copied an article from Wikipedia.
The Finnish term heimosodat is in English literally “Kindred Nations Wars”, “Wars for kindred peoples” or “Kinship Wars” for Finnic kinship. It is often erroneously translated as “Tribal Wars”. It refers to conflicts in territories inhabited by other Finnic peoples, often in Russia or in borders of Russia, in which some 9000 Finnish volunteers took part between 1918 and 1922, to help other Finnic peoples get rid of a non-Finnic yoke. Many of the volunteer soldiers were inspired by the idea of Greater Finland. Some of the conflicts were expeditions from Finland and some were risings by the people of these areas, where volunteers wanted either to help the people in their fight for independence or to annex the areas to Finland.
The phenomenon is closely linked to nationalism as Finland had just won its national independence, and a part of the population felt that they had obligations to help other Finnic peoples to attain the same. Estonia, the closest and numerically biggest kindred nation, had at the same time won its independence, but had less resources and less ready institutions to support its gained position, and more Russian troops inside its borders. Other Finnic peoples were at much lower cultural, economic and political capability level. The Finnish Civil War had wakened a strong nationalistic feeling that sought tangible ways to make itself have impact. Finland had, for the two next decades, a relatively high citizen participation in nationalistic activities (e.g Carelia-ideology and also Finnicization of the country and its institutions). Only the strenuous five-year period 1939-45 of total war drained excess enthusiasm.
You write that All developed capitalistic countries hated that country and they only needed a cause. With all respect your argument is not analytical at all. If someone in your neighbourhood repeats to you year after year that “all people hate me”, so what do you really think about that person? As I indicated above other nations felt worry and mistrust of USSR. Mistrust was well-founded, the country which was almost totally closed to foreigners killed millions of its own people. It is obvious that the decisions of the League of Nations were not always logical. However I suppose we can agree that there are reasons enough to give a punishment to a country for attacking to another country.
Speaking about the destinies of the Baltic States. If there is uncertainty about: the amount of the killed persons, the amount of the deportees, the voluntariness and the lawfulness of the annexation of the Baltic States to USSR etc. you should ask the opinion of the Balts. Why would they lie to you? If everything that USSR did was lawful and everything was done in mutual understanding of vast majority of the Balts so why these people hate Russians, why the Governments of the Baltic States and citizens have totally different opinions about annexation etc.? Why the Balts sought security under Nato against Russia? Why the Russians are the only ones in this world who think that the annexation of the Baltic States to USSR was voluntary? Please think about these things, read articles in Internet. Russian people cannot be anymore brainwashed as they were some years ago.
Of course Finland know that Hitler did not help it without compensation. You perhaps know that according to the race doctrine of the Nazis the position of the Slavs was relative high, Aryans were of course on the top, but Finns were real dregs of society. As I tried to explain to you earlier Germany and Finland had common interests. After Winter War Finland was without any powerful friends and USSR wanted to finish its unfinished work (i.e. in order to obtain better strategic positions to conquer the whole country). Hitler understood perfectly the poor position of Finland and offered help. It is true that Finland allowed Germany inter alia to use its territory (also Sweden allowed railway traffic of Wehrmacht through the country). But it is also true that already a year earlier Finland was compelled by USSR to give its territory to strategic purposes of USSR. You can estimate yourself what was the freedom of actions of the Government of Finland.
One can never say 100 % sure that if you made something other way so everything should have been fine. In spite of that it is a common understanding among authoritative historians that (unfortunately) Finns had no possibilities to be neutral in 1941. Please read studies e.g. Hans Peter Krosby. And please do not say that “all western historians lie and are against USSR/Russia”. Western countries are not any homogenous group but a group of states with different opinions and values. There is a lot of high level research of history available in western world and it is fruitless to say that all researchers are anti-Russians.
Even though Mannerheim did not like bolsheviks he had no intention to attack to Leningrad, he refused to take any such actions despite the demands of Germany. Finland had different interests, its purpose was to get back territories occupied by USSR in Winter War and its interests were fulfilled till the end of the year 1941. It was not in Finnish interests to attack to Leningrad. In addition to that it would have been difficult to imagine that Finnish soldiers had accepted to attack against the city. As you perhaps know there were huge differences in following orders of commanders in e.g. Finnish, German and USSR armies. As far as I understand German and Russian soldiers were sentenced to death if they refused to follow orders. In Finnish Army there were refusals but death sentences were rare.
When I spoke about USA I only mentioned its military power, nothing else. Nobody could have won USA in the WW II. Please note that also Finns know what it means when an enemy changes homes or a town into a battlefield.
As far as I understand from your message now we have a common understanding about:
1) the target of Winter War, which was to occupy whole Finland.
2) “Bullshit”bombing on June 25. 1941.
3) The facts that Finland was attacked by USSR without any declaration of war in 1939 and 1941.
We do not have a common understanding about:
1) attack/assault against Leningrad from north. In Finnish dictionary attack is a synonym to assault, sorry my imperfect English. Please give more information about those attacks/assaults over Sestra. Please limit the information to the attacks/assaults which purpose was to occupy more territory, not e.g. to forcible reconnaissance missions (if any).
2) bombing of Finnish towns during Winter War. Bombing of a town is rather easy to find out (pictures, news, ruins etc). If you do not believe bombings there is not much to do.
I am still waiting for details about Fin-Ger relationship in 1935-39 and Pol-Ger relationship in the thirties
Btw, I read your reply to Grendel 14.9.2007. In Finland it is said that “Stop making excuses, it will only make things worse”.
Best regards
Harri
I am very sad to read that Russians are still/again believing in utter propaganda.
For all sane people it is clear what happened in Mainila. Do you honeslty believe Finland would have attacked Soviet Union alone in 1939, without any allies!!! You must be kidding me!!!!!!!!!
Events in 1941 are less clear, but what is clear is that Finland would have had a big incentive to take back its territories.
Finland stopped to its old borders in Carelian Isthmus near Leningrad 1941. It crossed the border in Eastern Carelia. On the other hand, if Russia could have continued, it would have taken the whole country if it could in 1939 and again in 1944. Marshal Mannerheim had sympathy for Leningrad because of personal reasons.