There are 54,546 Russians in Finland

Re: Human Genome project discussion

Depends on tradition. Sounds like mobilized/armored infantry with necessary guerrilla training to me.

That I do. Given that I would emphasize training and motivation. Lack of later being the ultimate reason for the defeat of yanks in Nam and Soviets in Afghanistan.

 

Re: Human Genome project discussion

Nope. It's kind of light on infantry. No guerilla training, except for maybe hit and run tactics. Assets like artillery, normally found at division and brigade level, are found at company and platoon level. It's designed to to perform taditional cavalry functions like finding or slowing the enemy, and seizing objectives far out in advance of main forces. It uses the same tanks as regular armored units.

If I remember right, Suomi ski units (motti?) performed a similar function during the Winter War.

 

Re: Human Genome project discussion

Yap. That is how our sissi-units are trained. We call them guerillas, because if necessary they are able to operate indepently. But so does all our units, I think I have been lost in english terms.

 

Re: Human Genome project discussion

Exactly!

Guerillas are units that disappear into the countryside or population when not active.

 

Re: Human Genome project discussion

Ok. We are conversing of so very different military doctrines. Fins know that we can never stand long against our mighty opponent. When the front is in danger of being overrun we’ve been trained to fold back in the vast woodlands and start independent resistance until Stella Polaris kicks in. There is no difference between population or countryside: each and every Finnish citizen is obligated by the constitution to aid the war effort, no matter which sex or age.

 

Once again: Exactly! Guerilla Warfare.

The U.S. military has many types of units trained in different styles of combat. The Finns do, too. The units in the Karellian Isthmus during the Winter War comprised the bulk of the armed forces and were engaged in trench warfare ala WWI. That's where the Russians were finally able to win the war.

 

True. I think I have misunderstood the use of the word “guerilla” (at least in the context that you use it). Yes we have a lot of military units trained in different styles of combat, but they all share the same basic training in which the ability to operate independently is a part of.
We lost both the Winter War and the subsequent Continuation War by getting stuck with a trench war. With the addition that in the first we ran out of men and material alike, even after freeing two divisions to frontline operations by replacing the non-combatant personnel with women. In the latter case, the failure of our mighty ally in Kursk and Stalingrad doomed us too.

 

The only way Finland can protect itself from Russia is through having powerful allies or through a Russian failure of will. If they had become a democracy, that could easily happen. That problem with conducting a "guerilla" defense is that the enemy can go anywhere they have the will to go and take anything they want.

I think Russia wants things the way they are.

 

In the Winter War (or Soviet-Finland War) the USSR was the unjust aggressor and Finland was the defender. But, unfortunately, there were no other way for Soviet government to protect Leningrad against the future attacks of the Axis in case Finland allied with them. And Finland did just that, but if that was caused by previous Soviet aggression or not is debatable.

So, while most "normal" Russians do not approve that aggression against the Finland (and regret it, if this is a proper word for something that happened before one was even born), they also can not see any other way Soviet government would have taken. How do I dare to speak for <<most "normal" Russians>>? I do not know, but I think in this case I can.

As for the protecting Finland from Russia, there is no such need. No country needs protection from Russia, for Russia does not start wars*, and has no need to start wars, and benefits most from peace and prosperity associated with peace.

*-if its rulers are smart. If they are not, they could not possibly win a war. See Afgan war for example.

 

Thank you for those words. Much appreciated.

To my knowledge we allied ourselves with the Nazis because the imminent threat of soviets and no one else were willing to help us. But I will not make excuses with our past, yes we did willingly ally ourselves with the Dritte Reich and that is a thing we must live with.

The burden we bare is not of our making, but of our fathers. But it is our task to make it a thing of the past. In Finland that will be an arduous task, the grudge cuts so deep.

True. The one thing I did always respected with the soviets was their doctrine to use nuclear weapons only in retaliation, even in the case of mutually assured destruction. Cannot say the same about the yanks.

 

Russia was correct in it's assumptions in starting the Winter War, but it was not "right". Leningrad was not captured by the Nazis almost solely because of the supply line across Lake Ladoga. If Leningrad had fallen...well the early part of Operation Barbarossa was a closely run thing. And if Russia had been knocked out of WWII, Europe itself may have slid completely into barbarism. The Russians tied up 2/3 of the Wermacht during the war. The U.S. might have built up enough power to liberate Europe with Great Britain, but it would have taken a decade to do so, probably after defeating Japan. In the meantime...

In reality, Law gives way to expediency in War.

 

Inter arma silent leges.

 

reminds me of a joke...
A Frenchman, a German, and a Russian go on a safari and are trapped by cannibals. They are brought to the chief, who says, "We are going to eat you right now. But I am a civilized man, I studied human rights at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, so I'll grant each of you a last request." The German asks for a mug of beer and a bratwurst. He gets it, and cannibals eat him. The French asks for three girls. He has crazy sex with them, and then follows the German. The Russian asks: "Hit me hard, right on my nose." The chief is surprised, but hits him. The Russian pulls out a pistol and shoots all the cannibals. The mortally wounded chief asks him: "Why didn't you do this before we ate the German?", the Russian proudly replies: "Russians are not aggressors!"


reguarding the soviet involvement in afganistan, from what I read, the soviets were asked to assist, by the communist govenment of afganistan, against the uprising that was occuring. Altho they they ended up withdrawing they continued to support the communist afgan government (who were now russian trained but understood local ways of doing things) who did quite well untill 1996 when Yeltsin became president and withdrew support becasue he didn't want to be seen to be supporting communism.

 

Maybe so, but before that a Soviet special force squad killed (probably to make a communist government) Afghanistan's head of state (who, it is said, was not bad), which lead to the increase in instability.