| Conquest, Re-conquest or both?
After
rather quickly re-conquering the areas ceded after the Winter War the
Finnish army then continued eastward north of Lake Ladoga and didn’t
stop until it had reached the passes between the major lakes Ladoga,
Onega and Segozero. By this operation, the politically most
controversial of the Continuation War, Finland occupied most of Eastern
Carelia, which had never been part of Finland although it had a
Finnish-speaking original population. This considerable advance beyond
the original borders of 1939 has sometimes been explained by claiming
that the narrows between the lakes constituted the natural strategic defense
line for Finland. That claim loses most of its credibility when one
notes that early in the summer 1944 the Finnish army withdraw from that
“natural” line to a line somewhat west(!) of the old border in order
to man a shorter and more easily defended line!
One cannot but discern the ghost of the old dreams of “Greater
Finland” hovering in the background when that decision to advance was
taken! The fact that Marshal Mannerheim himself in his infamous July
10th order of the day reconfirmed that “…I won’t sheath my sword
again until all of Carelia has been liberated...” certainly hasn’t
helped to negate that assumption the least!
On the other side one has to remember that the decision was taken at a
point of time when almost everyone expected a more or less quick German
victory over the Soviet Union. Perhaps the idea was just to ascertain
that Finland got its part of the spoils? In any case there was the,
somewhat naïve, hope that Eastern Carelia could be used as a bargaining
chip in the peace negotiations that eventually would come, regardless of
if Germany or Russia won the war.
This advance into (and eventual retreat from) Russian territory wasn’t
of any major military importance but for Finland it resulted in
political problems and a moral hangover. The UK and Russia were now both
fighting on the same side and in the eyes of the western powers Finland
now was one of Hitler’s allies. Advancing just up to the old borders
might have been excused but going further certainly wasn’t. Finland
was sent an ultimatum, stop advancing within two weeks or the UK will
declare war. Finland responded very meekly and did not, for military
reasons, even hint at that the operations were in any case expected to
stop very soon. On the 6th of December UK declared war on Finland and
was within days followed by its Dominions. That act never hit the
headlines; the next day far greater things happened, the Japanese
executed their attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Russians initiated their
first large scale counterattack against the Germans around Moscow.
Both events were far more portentous for Finland’s future than the UK
declaration of war; with the US now actively involved on the western
side an eventual German defeat was significantly more possible and the
successful Russian counterattack signaled that the fighting in the east
was far from over and the outcome very open to speculation.
The moral hangover that resulted from the advance into Eastern Carelia
has continued to this day. With its troops far inside Russia it was
difficult to any more claim some “moral superiority”. The war that
started as a morally justified operation intended just to recover what
Russia had taken by force through the Winter War had suddenly got an
ugly taint of a war of conquest. Military expediency or pure greed
doesn’t really matter any more, what happened in 1941 is just an
unsavoury detail in its history that Finland has to live with, like it
or not.
The Siege of Leningrad
In the autumn of 1941 Leningrad became cut off from the rest of Russia,
German troops covered the land area to the south, between the Golf of
Finland and Lake Ladoga and Finnish troops covered the northern area,
again between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga. The only route open
for supplying the city, its defenders and its civilian population was
the sea-route over Lake Ladoga or in wintertime the same route over the
ice of the frozen lake.
Clearly this was not a very good route to supply neither any army
involved in heavy fighting nor more than a million civilians. Famine and
terrible sufferings resulted.
The defenders resisted all attacks by the Germans. Despite a number of
suggestions by the Germans that the Finnish troops should take an active
part in the attacks Marshal Mannerheim stuck to his, already during the
spring of 1941 declared, refusal to let his troops do anything like
that. It was, at least with hindsight, a politically very wise decision,
but above all it was a militarily a necessary one, the Finnish army had
neither the training, nor the equipment, the resources or the manpower
necessary for that kind of an operation.
Lately there has popped up a number of authors that have suddenly
noticed that during the siege of Leningrad 1941-44 Finnish troops formed
part of the encirclement. This fact is then used to accuse Finland to be
guilty of the horrors the civilians in that town had to endure. Those
authors however seem totally ignorant of two important facts: The first
is that Finland’s 1939 borders were such that even without any Finnish
participation in the war Leningrad would nevertheless have been cut off
from land contact with Russia when the German troops reached the shore
of Lake Ladoga in 1941. (Note) The second is that the civilians in
Leningrad would certainly anyway have suffered almost as badly even if
there had a remained a land connection around Lake Ladoga. To feed a
multi-million city in the absolute frontline over any kind of route was
hardly within the capabilities of Russia during the period in question.
Theoretically one can imagine a scenario where the Finnish troops would
have restricted their advance in 1941 in order to leave a rail
connection around Lake Ladoga open to Leningrad from the interior of
Russia. But is it realistic to expect Finland to abstain from reclaiming
areas it felt had been robbed from it through the Winter War, in order
to now safeguard the lifeline of one of the robber’s cities? A
lifeline, the need of which wasn’t even apparent when the decision to
advance was taken. Some people seem to forget that in fact Finland and
Russia were at war!
Note.
One cannot but note that this “siege question” can be used as a defense
for the Russian claims 1939 that a border adjustment was necessary in
order to safeguard Leningrad. But that defense fails as the Russians
never before the Moscow peace talks 1940 demanded a movement of the
border so extensive that it would have made any difference in 1941!
jcl
|