Hey everyone, I’m going to have another video up this week talking about Günter Reimann’s “Vampire Economy” (primary source document published 1939) as part of another Patron Q&A. It’ll probably be up on Thursday. You can get this book online as a free PDF if you want to do some reading beforehand. I would highly recommend it because it’s a great source for understanding Nazi Germany, even if it does have a few flaws… as I’ll discuss in the next video. I am behind with the Q&As (as usual) so I apologize to those who have asked questions and haven’t yet had them answered. I’m currently reading up on Mussolini and Italy for a future video on them, as well as the German economy, and I’m trying to find information on chemical weapons in WW2 in order to answer some more. Was Finland part of the Axis of WW2? Or was it a co-belligerent? Let me know what you think below. I’m willing to change my mind on the subject if your evidence/interpretation is superior than the counterarguments. *Sources* Buttar, P. "Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II." Ospery Publishing, 2013. Dix, A. "The Norway Campaign and the Rise of Churchill 1940." Pen&Sword, Kindle 2014. Haupt, W. "Army Group North: The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941-1945." Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 1997. Hitler, A. "Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017. Hitler, A. "Zweites Buch (Secret Book): Adolf Hitler's Sequel to Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017. Hunt, V. “Blood in the Forest: The End of the Second World War in the Courland Pocket.” Helion & Company Limited, 2017. Glantz, D. "The Battle for Leningrad 1941-1944." University Press of Kansas, 2002. Glantz, D. "The Siege of Leningrad 1941-1944: 900 Days of Terror." Brown Partworks Ltd, 2001. Lunde, H. "Finland's War of Choice: The Troubled German-Finnish Coalition in World War II." Casemate Publishers, 2011. Newton, S. “Retreat from Leningrad: Army Group North 1944/1945.” Schiffer Military History, 1995. Wuorinen, J. “Finland and World War II, 1939-1944.” Pickle Partners Publishing, 2015. For a full list of all my WW2 books, check out this list docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit?usp=sharing Thanks for watching!

@ameyindore

5 жыл бұрын

Hey TIK, please do a video about Hitler and manerheim conversation, which was recorded in a railway coach. Which is also the only recording of hitler talking in a normal tone.

@adaw2d3222

5 жыл бұрын

As a Finn I am of the opinion that Finland was a part of the Axis since denying that is a part of the post-war propaganda.

@jjquinn295

5 жыл бұрын

The axis is much harder to define as an alliance than the allies. They were almost all fighting their own war with their own war goals and had minimal coordination and cooperation. Was Japan a part of the Axis? Everyone signed separate peace deals and alot of the goals conflict with each other.

@hairychris444

5 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't say that they were Axis. Allied with Germany, yes, but also kinda not being directly belligerent to the Allies on the whole. I'm not sure whether Finnish units (minus the SS foreign legion types) served with the Axis anywhere, including Russia - although I am happily open to correction. Romania, Italy, etc had units under German command in Russia and it didn't end entirely well for them. Finland, or rather Mannerheim, seems to have trodden the very fine line of allying with Germany but not antagonizing the USSR to the point that they ended up annexed when Germany collapsed. EDIT: Russia were the belligerents in the Winter War. Finland were in a "lesser of 2 evils" situation from the start. Allying with Hitler is fucking shitty, getting rolled by the Red Army is (depending on your point of view) fucking shittier.

@chrishuerlimann9726

5 жыл бұрын

I can't wait, thanks for all the vids

I love tik because he's one of the few Historians that actually understand economics.

@shorewall

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, if you don't take the economics into account, along with everything else, you get a distorted view of history.

@samlosco8441

3 жыл бұрын

I don't know, his take that Nazi Germany was socialist in a Marxian sense is very misleading and downright incorrect

@Raccoon_A

3 жыл бұрын

He has a view on economics. Not understanding.

@fernandogiongo

3 жыл бұрын

If you think that, you have a very low bar for how much someone has to know to "understand economics".

@odysseus2656

3 жыл бұрын

@@samlosco8441 Actually it is very accurate and apologists like you, should stop trying to claim that a socialist state,. aka "a government dictatorship that enslaves the people" in the name of the workers, like the USSR, is not the same as a socialist state aka " government dictatorship that enslaves the people" in the name of some ethnic group, like Nazi Germany did. No real difference at all, at all. Socialism is government dictatorship no matter the excuse given, whether marxian socialism, or national socialism, or democrat socialism.

Finns built an anti-submarine net across the Finnish gulf blocking the whole Soviet sub fleet to Leningrad. Together with coastal artillery and mines the gap from Porkkala to Naissaar was closed off from Soviets. Soviets lost 4 submarines and two minesweepers trying to break through. The net itself was made by Nokia Cable Factory. This meant that the whole Soviet Baltic fleet was incapacitated from 1941-1944 and that Germany and Finland ruled the Baltic sea.

@casparcoaster1936

2 жыл бұрын

I loved my old nokia

@ezragoldberg3132

2 жыл бұрын

I remember reading about a Russian submarine trying to force the net, failed and then tried firing torpedoes at the barrier. Or something like that :D

@patricklemire9278

Ай бұрын

Nokias can’t be destroyed that’s well known

Fun fact: Norway stood for about half of Germany's fish imports and almost 100% of canned fish which was popular on the front! (EDIT: This was for the years 1943-1944)

@Nygaard2

5 жыл бұрын

@Askeladden Denmark provided about 10% of ALL the rations consumed by the Wehrmacht... We didn’t even really have to ration basic foods until very late in 42, and our calories intake only dropped from 3300 to 3150 during the occupation. I can’t find the source, but I’m pretty sure a lot of rationing was actually implemented AFTER the end of the occupation so we didn’t seem too well of compared to the British and French and Dutch who had ACTUALLY fought the Nazis...

@stefanb6539

5 жыл бұрын

Ahhm,... half of fish import, OK, sounds reasonable enough, but to provide almost 100% of canned fish for Germany would mean, that the sizeable German fishery fleets (I know Hamburg alone had 400 trawlers in port) would produce pretty much no canned fish at all. That sounds quite implausible.

@chartreux1532

5 жыл бұрын

+Askeladden I didn't know that it was that much but i knew they had Canned Fish from Norway. Both of my Grandfathers were in the Waffen SS (1st "LAH" and 6th "Nord") and my maternal grandfather who was with the 6th would always order Norwegian Canned Fish and eat it like 4 times per Week. He always tried to make me eat it telling me "Norwegischer Fisch! Komm, ist gesund für dich, damit du groß und stark wirst!" Engl Translation: "Norwegian Fish! Come on, its healthy for you, so you grow tall and become strong!" He died at the Age of 102, so i guess eating all of that Norwegian Fish so often really helped.

@askeladden7930

5 жыл бұрын

@@stefanb6539 You are quite right. I double checked and it was for the years 1943-1944.

@askeladden7930

5 жыл бұрын

@@chartreux1532 Haha, he sounds like a cool dude. I bet he had quite some stories to tell (if it was something he wanted to talk about ofc.) I only had one family member that participated in the war as far as im concerned, but he never wanted to talk about it. Not even a little bit. But i can understand that, it was ww2 afterall.

Asking "who was the Axis" is like asking "who was Fleetwood Mac," after the first couple of names it gets complicated.

The axis question is more complicated than the tripartite treaty. Germany and Italy were allied with each other before the war. Finland definitely wasn't. Even after winter war it wasn't allied to Germany. only when the Soviets started making demands, Finland sought help from the only direction that was willing to give help was Germany.

@randysavage1

Жыл бұрын

Germans and so it's had a secret non aggression pact in the 1920s It was released after WW2. That shows they were already teaming up, plus they invaded Poland and split it between each other...

Nickel came from Petsamo, Finland.

@TheImperatorKnight

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@pekkamakela2566

5 жыл бұрын

@@mablo88123 yeah, we lost it in peace treaty.

@kallebengtzon5240

3 жыл бұрын

Also sweden got stuff from USA via the harbor in petsamo.like airplanes

I'd like to add that the finnish artillery forces suffered heavy attrition because of the vast ammunition usage in the early stages of 1941. So they had to stop to do maintenance on their artillery pieces and consolidate their captured artillery pieces. During the next 3 years they would finally form homogenous batteries and train mortar teams. source: Alajoki, Matti: Tykistönkenraali Vilho Petter Nenonen. Keuruu 1975.

@chartreux1532

5 жыл бұрын

+Ancientfungi My maternal Grandfather was in the 6th Waffen SS Division "Nord" and therefor fought in Finland together with Finns. I had no idea about what you said there, but this explains a few things my Grandfather told me that i couldn't find any Sources of. So thanks for that Source.

#TIK Nickel comes from Finland, Iron ore from northernmost Sweden, that ore then goes *through* Norway out into the Atlantic (Through Narvik), Both Sweden and Finland have huge forest industries (lumber, paper etc) afaik Norway does not (mostly mountains), controlling Norway prevents the Allies from stopping the ore shipments leaving Narvik, as well as keeping the norwegian coast safe for transporting said ore south to Germany. Controlling Denmark asures direct control of entrance to the Baltic Sea. Sweden is also an important steel manufacturer, but lacks coal, most coal was imported from Poland, wich Germany also controlled. There's most likely a lot more to it than that for why Germany did what they did and why the british were considering invading Norway, but that's what i know.

@norcatch

4 жыл бұрын

Norway has historically had quite a large lumber industry. Part of the background for Norway leaving the union with Sweden in 1905 was the consulate controversy in the latter decades of the 19th century. Norway wanted their own consulates because, among other reasons, it was felt that Swedish consular staff was favouring the Swedish lumber industry when promoting trade. Large parts of Norwegian growth during WW1 came through lumber exports. Should be noted that the Kriegsmarine wanted Norway for submarine bases. No one foresaw the early fall of France, and the opening of their Atlantic ports. And even then, Norwegian ports helped with raiding the Arctic convoys, not to mention the obsession of getting out into the Atlantic without threading through the channel.

@Kyosti5000

3 жыл бұрын

There is quite recent study on Finnish nickel and Britain. The article is in Finnish, but I am sure it can be translated to mostly understandable english. www.jyrkinen.fi/historia/petsamon-nikkeli.html

@hnorrstrom

3 жыл бұрын

Back then quite a large portion of swedish ore was mined in the bergslagen area, lots of mines was still operating there. Like grängesberg, dannemora, stråssa, garpenberg, ramhäll to name a few. Plenty of ore was shipped out of Luleå and Oxelösund in the south as other smaller ports. But they coulden't operate when there was ice in the baltic like january-april so thats why narvik was used. There is a great book on the subject. I can search for it if somebody is interested... Everyone just think of Kiruna and Narvik. But at that time there was plenty of smaller mines.

Hey TIK. I listened to that topic about Scandinavia with its answers. You spoke about Mannerheim's position on the siege of Leningrad. In this matter, it is worth going back to World War I and the years before that, when Mannerheim lived in St. Petersburg, the city of the emperor. It is good to remember that Mannerheim served Russia during its empire and that Mannerheim belongs, among other things, to the chevaler guard (as the bodyguard of Emperor Nicholas II) and that he respected and wanted to remember the good sides of Russia. I think these years will be one of the reasons why he (Finland) did not leave to besiege Leningrad. Another thing that could also be brought up is that Mannerheim understood the consequences if Finland participated in the siege of Leningrad and lost the fight against the Soviet Union! It takes a lot of skill to get a combat victory between two tyrants ...

Finland's "concentration camps" were similar to the American camps for the Japanese. Nothing like Auschwitz, so having them does not make Finland more Axis-like.

@hitznkoff4285

5 жыл бұрын

I believe Spain was the first country to have “concentration camps” America was second.

@lennipulkkinen6446

5 жыл бұрын

Only prison camps For captured soviet soldiers

@TheZINGularity

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, i hope TIK sees this point because its a pretty big factor IMO

@pehmomarsu

5 жыл бұрын

Actually Auswitch-Birkenau was an extermination camp, therefore it had high death toll. Concentration camp is a camp to where you concentrate some group of people. Finnish concentration camps during WWII had mostly Soviet citizens from the land under the Finnish occupation, among prisoners there were a lot of children. There were also prisoner of war -camps for the Soviet soldiers and some of them had to work as a forced labor. The death toll of the Finnish concentration camps were nowhere near Auswitch-Birkenau as Finns did not have extermination camps. However the death toll for the Soviet citizens staying at Finnish concentration camps were closer to Nazi-operated camps like Dachau than the American internment camps.

@Nygaard2

5 жыл бұрын

@Melissa Miller Nope, the Brits have that “honor” with their camps for the Boers in the 2nd Boer War. At least in the modern sense of the word.

Germany's attempt to build an atomic bomb utilized the Vemork hydroelectric power plant in Norway to develop "heavy water." The allies destroyed the power plant in early 1943.

Another point to add about German Army troops in Norway is that after April, 1942 there were only 3 corps and these were composed of 2nd and 3rd line troops. Their combat value would have been very limited if they'd been employed against the Russians. Not to mention that the USA/UK would most certainly have liberated Norway post haste if the Germans had left it without a significant garrison. Oh, I up voted to hell.

@juliancate7089

5 жыл бұрын

@@RLRSwanson Honestly, I hate these types of nitpicking dick-measuring comments where the objective seems to be to score points for being more knowledgeable than someone else, rather than to share knowledge. My comment was aimed at the person who had asked TIK about why the German garrison in Norway was so large and why didn't the Germans divert some of those divisions to the east. The answer I gave was not as detailed as it could have been, but since we're going down this road, before March/April 1942 there were 3 corps plus 1 mountain corps - variously named Gebirgskorps Norwegen or XIX Gebirgskorps. The mountain corps was used in Northern Finnland until it was forced to retreat back into Norway in November, 1944. So....yes....there were more than 3 corps for the last 6 months of the war, but they weren't there as part of the garrison. They were there because they'd been forced to retreat there. If you want to split hairs, you win. As far as I see it, those units retreating into Norway weren't part of the garrsion - and that's no technicality because they were not part of AOK Norwegen after 1942.

@chartreux1532

5 жыл бұрын

@@RLRSwanson My Maternal Grandfather was in the 6th Waffen SS Division. He got captured by Americans in January 1945 in Alsace. I gotta go through all of his Stuff because he never mentioned having been stationed anywhere in Norway, just that they "went through" Norway. Or did you not mean stationed i misunderstood you? If so, apologies.

it's fair to say that Finland was part of the Axis at least because they were fighting Germany's enemy. But the Finns were the one country that truly were justified because of what Russia had done to them and the Finns made every effort not to engage any other of the allied nation but Russia...........

@metalsnake869

5 жыл бұрын

Finland was not part of the Axis, we didn't surrender our jews to Germany and actually there were jews fighting in the Finnish army against the Soviets. And we joined the war because the Soviets attacked us first again. Besides fighting the Soviets doesn't make the country automatically Axis.

@verticallogic5909

5 жыл бұрын

metalsnake...i agree and if you read all of my comment, you will see that i said Finland was justified. As far as Jews are concerned, neither did Italy give their Jews to the nazis. My saying that they were in the Axis was less a political statement than a practical one because they WERE fighting with Germany. It's really not that important an issue because anyone that has any understanding of the war (with the exception of Russians) would agree that Finland was justified.....

@Messor-oh2pw

4 жыл бұрын

@@verticallogic5909 Finnland was a nazi state from the end of the Finnish civil war, where germans became the final factor. Before the Soviet-Finnish war it was already nazi. Just remember, any war agaist of USSR is giving you +100 points to your reputation in any "historical" propaganda of any capitalistic state. Its just the ideological protection of businessmen interests against working class. If you talking about USSR or their enemies fair, one day modern people can ask about seizing the property of oligarchy... and to prevent it, any lie is ok for them.

@Raccoon_A

4 жыл бұрын

@@metalsnake869 Eipäs. Suomenlahti oli miinoitettu valmiiksi jne. Ja sotaan lähdettiin ihan omasta halusta hyökkäämään. Neukut näki tän itsestäänselvänä ja pommitti ensin ja siitä saatiin hyvä tekosyy. Hyökätty olisi muutenkin.

@Raccoon_A

4 жыл бұрын

@@Messor-oh2pw Nope! Try wikipedia for starters maybe?

It was my understanding that the Germans were mainly frustrated that the Fins would not close the loop completely around Leningrad. I don't think they ever contemplated the Fins going into Leningrad.

Thank you for this video. A few friendly notes...it's more preferred way to use expression Greater Finland in place of Giant Finland. Only on the Karelian Isthmus (the land area between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga) the Finns stopped their Offensive Phase in 1941 in the vicinity of the 'old border'. Elsewhere Finnish troops crossed the 'old border' after gaining the territories lost in the Winter War. Mannerheim experienced this Soviet soil, occupied by the Finns as a kind of negotiating trump, Finland would cede this occupied area in exchange for the lost territories and sign a separate peace with the Soviets already in 1941 or in 1942 in Mannerheim's visions. In 1941 the Soviets didn't stop the Finnish Offensive Phase, the order to halt the attack came from the Finnish HQ. For instance, Churchill congratulated Finland and Mannerheim due the regaining of the lost territories, but at the same time he warned about serious consequences to happen if Finland would advance deeper on Soviet soil. With a personal letter Mannerheim answered to Churchill, that Finland is nearly closing its objectives, but this didn't please Churchill and the Great Britain declared war on Finland. The letters are preserved in the British Imperial War Museum.

@Darqshadow

4 жыл бұрын

Figures, Churchill messing good plans up with his idiocy

@jayfrank1913

2 жыл бұрын

Don't use the t-word 'round these parts.

I love how you have to contain laughter when talking about the ridiculousness of Nazi ideology. It’s obviously very serious yet it’s hard not to chuckle when explaining the level of ridiculousness involved.

Thank you for answering my question.

@TheImperatorKnight

5 жыл бұрын

No worries sir! Sorry it took so long to get to it

Patriots and ideologues, you are on the kill lists of both groups. Honest analysis is frequently dangerous. I love your work!

@TheImperatorKnight

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, I'm making enemies of group-thinkers. They'll especially dislike my video on "The Vampire Economy" coming later this week (see Pinned Comment).

@henleinkosh2613

5 жыл бұрын

Well if they're trying to kill him, he must be doing something right

@norwegianboyee

5 жыл бұрын

It's silly how many patriotic jerks hijack history in favor of their own side. The TRUTH doesn't even matter for many of them anymore.

@antoniovillanueva308

5 жыл бұрын

@@norwegianboyee The history that Americans are taught in school is very clean and very boring. It is also very dangerous as it leads Americans to believe that we can do no wrong. -- The crap that I learned about WWII in the 70s was almost entirely untrue. I have had to throw it all out and start over.

Hi TIK, Love your videos. I am familiar with the Finnish experience during the Winter War and beyond. I spent several years in the country and actually learned to speak their language (Suomi). I talked with a number of veterans while I was there. The only reason the Finns joined up with the Germans was to get back about 20 percent of their country that had been stolen by the Soviets in 1939-40. So to me they were a limited liability partner unlike true members of the Axis. As a post note I was worried how the natives would treat someone with a German last name, since for many European countries in the 70s the wounds of the war were still fresh. The people of Finland welcomed a "German Boy" with open arms.

@callbb9361

2 жыл бұрын

So, you're German or German American?

@ivrishcon-abarth38

Жыл бұрын

We Finns are fine with Germans. It´s Russians and sometimes swedish that are suspicious. Our only goal in WWII was to stay independent, at any cost. My grandfathers fought there, my grandmother from father´s side was evacuated as young teen from Viipuri, and mothers mother was an air-defence lotta, who lied her age to get to the job. Father´s father lost his leg, died few years before I was born, he didn´t take losing a limb well, and drunk himself to early grave. Other grandfather lived to be 86, and told us grandkids warstories in the dim light and heat of sauna.

He needed Sweden's iron ore . 5 months of the year it could only be shipped through Norway, so he had to hold Norway.

Great channel. Just love the depth. Like things, variables, get considered here that sometimes left off other coverage. Lot of times questions will come up and lot of coverage just don't discuss it, here it gets that deep touch. Like the books, and pockets, Norway..love these vids. Thank you.

Looking at the map one understands that Finland would have theoretically participated in the Leningrad siege even if the Finnish troops had stayed 100 km from Leningrad! It would've been impossible for the Russians to supply Leningrad from the direction of Finland, no matter how far in the north the Finnish troops were. Finns had every right to take back the part of Carelian Isthmus which Stalin had robbed from Finland in 1940 and they also had the right to stay there, no matter what was the situation in Leningrad. I haven't seen anyone show any communication lines leading into Leningrad from North, so that the Finnish Army could have blocked them. Behind the Finnish lines north of Leningrad, the map shows only territory which belonged legally to Finland since 1920. Why the Finnish troops should have withdrawn from Finnish territory to help Stalin?

I read somewhere, that a highranking person (maybe it was Stalin. Dont recall) in the soviet system afterwards said: "We will not remember the Finnes for what they did, but for what they didn't do" It looks like they played their cards right.

Interesting points again, thanks.

If you list Finland as part of the Axis, you must also list the Soviet Union as part of the Axis for the same reasons. Both Germany and the Soviets attacked Poland in 1939. Germany just betrayed the USSR in 1941.

@gumdeo

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed, Soviets gave Germans more actual assistance than any (other) Axis country.

Denmark supplied a major part of the German food supplies during WWII. Estimates vary, but somewhere between 10 and 20%. Denmark had for centuries exported foodstuff to Germany, but until WWII they at least payed.

Scandinavia was important for Nazi-Germany, but Operation Weserebüng was initiated by the Allied serious threats against Norway and Sweden if they did not stop trading with the Nazis. The Norwegian Coast Artillery was actually waiting for Royal Navy when German Kriegsmarine showed up. Sweden was left outside because of military/economic/political reasons. Don't forget Swedens's special relationship with Finland, a country Hitler wanted to keep friendly with. Due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Finland was a part of the Soviet sphere, Scandinavia was the German. In spite of neutrality, Sweden bent backward in order to support Finland during the Winter War and clearly, this was noted by the Germans. It could even be so that Finland was part of saving Sweden. This is something that still has to be figured out.

@norwegianboyee

5 жыл бұрын

That's true. If Hitler hadn't pre-emptively invaded Norway it could have been very likely that Britain would have done it. Both sides violated Norwegian indepence in the beginning of war. Britain put naval mines in Norwegian territory before the invasion even started.

@timooohz

5 жыл бұрын

I'd say Hitler didn't care about Finland until he could use them for Barbarossa. He sold off Finland to Stalin in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He even stopped deliveries of weapons and other equipment Finns had bought from Central Europe. These were, of course, delivered in time for Barbarossa. Then Finland doesn't collapse immediately under sovjet attack and Britain and France start talking about sending troops to Finland (Oh, what's this? Iron mines? What a coincidence our troops parked here...). Now Hitler has to get Stalin to stop the attack and the Finns to sue for peace. Not a big problem to get the Finns to agree, they were nearly done. I knew there were Swedish volunteers in Winter War, but I didn't know that they provided air defence (AA guns and fighter planes) for HALF THE COUNTRY! Northern half with not a lot of towns, but still!

@torbjornkvist

5 жыл бұрын

@@timooohz Don't forget Germany's involvement with the Finnish Civil War. This was still on their radar by 1939, there was a clear bond there. So much as Mannerheim warned his people for it. Of course, Finland was a part of the Nazis strategy from the beginning. Molotov-Ribbentrop gave Finland to Soviet and there was a promise of non-conflict that Moscow didn't hold. Sweden's involvement in Finland's was was such that the Swedish general staff wondered if they were going to give everything to the Finns.

Great stuff as ever, Tik - thanks! Two quick observations, FWIW: (1) I seem to recall reading that Norway was a perfect location for distillation of 'heavy water,' which was essential to Germany's nuclear weapons development program. Might that have been another important motivator for Hitler's hanging on to it? (2) My Swedish grandparents boasted throughout my youth about how savvy Sweden had been in threatening to destroy the iron mines should Germany invade. This story seems to have been a significant source of Swedish national pride at least into the '80s or so. Anyway cheers, thanks again, and please stay well!

Hey TIK, nice video. One thing I would like to point out since you've repeated it in several of your videos. You say that Hitler's main objective for Barbarossa is to go south and Halder's middle (Moscow). In fact Hitler's priority in the planning months of Barbarossa was the north: securing the Baltic coast and taking Leningrad. You say that the north was a sideshow, I beg to differ. Various sources say Hitler's emphasis was on the north and along with that securing the south (for the vital economic reasons that you've pointed out). Hitler declared Moscow to be 'completely immaterial' ('Moskau völlig gleichgültig') compared to the capture of Leningrad in mid March 1941 to his General Staff. Even during Barbarossa Hitler's focus did not alter. In early August Hitler remained wedded to Leningrad as the priority. The second priority was, as before, the south of Russia, especially the Donets region. Moscow remained a clear third on Hitler's priority list. Sources: Hitler: Nemesis 1936-1945 by Kershaw Russia's War by Overy Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg (DRZW) by the Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt German strategy against Russia by Leach

I always enjoy your videos. Thank you

I’m still subscribed! I’m learning a lot!

Just depends on how you define 'Axis'. In the end Finland had not much of a choice. Stalin wanted to occupy it, the Western Allies were in no position to help - just look at what happened in Norway - so the only other option was to work with the Germans if they wanted to stay independent.

@Feffdc

5 жыл бұрын

Then why Finland did the continuation war during they failed miserably?

@WandererRTF

5 жыл бұрын

@@Feffdc Failed? How do you figure that? Finns reached their planned targets - and after all of it, they did remain independent. The plan they had may not have had much to do with realism though. If you wonder why the Finns 'did the Continuation War' then you need to start looking at the Winter War and the subsequent aggressive Soviet politics towards Finland during the Interim Peace. Among other gems the Germans told Finns the information with regards to the Molotov's de facto demands for letting the USSR 'finish the matter with Finland' in 1940. But then again by that time the Soviets had already demanded Finnish ministers to resign, demanded rights to have Soviet troops to pass through Finland, tried to blackmail political concessions by withholding food shipments, shooting down Finnish civilian aircraft, repeatedly violating Finnish airspace, and so on...

@Feffdc

5 жыл бұрын

@@WandererRTF In Lapland, joint German-Finnish forces failed to capture Murmansk or cut the Kirov (Murmansk) Railway, a transit route for lend-leaseequipment to the USSR. The conflict stabilised with only minor skirmishes until the tide of the war turned against the Germans and the Soviet Union's strategic Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive in June 1944. The attack drove the Finns from most of the territories they had gained during the war,and after the war lost all the territory their country almost collapsed for AND payed reparations

@WandererRTF

5 жыл бұрын

@@Feffdc Operation to capture Murmansk was a purely German effort. Finnish contribution towards that region was just one (1) battalion strong 'separate detachment P' (P comes from the initial of the commanding officer, Pennanen) which was guarding and patrolling the long empty stretches of the 'front'. Actual offensive in that region was purely German effort. Further to the south Finns however themselves stalled the offensive towards the Kirov railway due to Western (i.e. USA) pressure - and the Germans could not advance in that terrain without Finnish help. It was a political decision and it really soured the relations between the German commanders in the northern Finland and the Finnish commander responsible for the Finnish troops in the are who - while under German operational command - followed the 'recommendations' from the Finnish HQ & president. The Soviet offensive during the summer of 1944 did force the Finns back, but that offensive failed to reach it goals. You can actually look at STAVKA orders if you like and you will notice that the Soviet forces were never able to reach the ordered 'stopline' at any point. At the one single point where the Soviets briefly did actually reach the pre-Continuation War border the Soviet units which did that were defeated and forced to retreat leaving all their equipment for the Finns (at Ilomantsi in August 1944). Also the Soviet demands prior to (let alone during) their offensive were harsher than those offered after the offensive. And contrary to your argument the Finnish military had never been stronger and better equipped than when the Soviet offensive of 1944 was stopped short of its goals. It was not anywhere close to collapse. As to what Finland lost due to the Continuation War... Compared to the pre-Continuation War situation that would be pretty much just Petsamo. Even then... Of all the capitals of the European countries actually fighting the WW II only three were not occupied or captured during the war: London, Moscow, and Helsinki. Given how hellbent the Soviets had been on invading Finland in 1939 and how close to invading Finland they had been in 1940 (when Hitler prevented it) - it does seem quite a bit like a success. They may not have win the war but contrary to so many other countries they survived it.

@ninaakari5181

4 жыл бұрын

@@Feffdc why did Greece do the 'German occupation of Greece'? Why Greece didn't protect its people? Why Greek marines couldn't protect their people? Why they failed miserable?

Tremendous effort

Hello Tik, You should emphasize more that Finland didn´t sign a pact, It´s quite clear that Finland didn´t want a political pact with the Axis, and it wasn´t an easy thing to say ”no” to the Germans which were keen to offer one, The only military pact that you can or cannot say that Finland signed was the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement in late 1944, and that was a hoax from a Finnish point of view. President Ryti hadn´t the mandate to sign this agreement or letter as president, and by doing this it was only an agreement between him personally and Hitler, and by doing this he knew when he signed the letter that his last duty was to leave the job as president after Finland had got the food and weapons that was desperately needed in the final stage of the war. This letter marked the closest to an alliance that Finland and Nazi Germany came to during World War II. Hitler didn´t seem to understand that Finland had an parliament and a government during the war. Neither Ryti nor Mannerheim had the constitutional power to make decisions in the same way that decisions were made by Axis leaders. The Anti-Comintern Pact was an agreement against the Communist International, not the Soviet Union. Great Britain declared war against Finland, but other allied countries like USA did not. The war against Great Britain might be called a phoney war. It´s childish to use phrases like ”unofficial axis” and so on. No one in Finland, not even a Finnish communist, would have called Finland a part of the Axis during the war. Where can you find anyone who would have done this except the Soviet Union for propaganda purposes after the war. Why should we do it now? It was just the ”Continuation War”. The ”Winter War” continued after 15 months. What Germany did was quite uninteresting for Finland as you pointed out in a good way. Thanks for that. Acts and plans of an occupation of Finland by the Soviet Union had been made since 1917. The Soviet Union didn´t manage to do this neither in 1917 nor during the Winter War. It´s clear that Stalin wanted to solve the Finnish problem during the WWII, when he didn´t manage to take the whole country in the Winter War and had failed in 1940. You should remember that the Soviet Union had exactly the same plans that Germany, but in the other direction. In Russian archives you can find plans like ”Operation Barbarossa” against German and East European territories and during the ”Winter War” Finland was ”a hostile British military territory” according to Soviet paradigms. If the Germans had waited some months the Soviet plans had been a reality for the territories west of the border of the Soviet Union´s troops. By the way, every country had ”concentration camps” during WW2. The Finns changed this international term for their camps after they had learned that unacceptable things might have happened in German camps that were called by the Germans ”concentration camps”. Finland followed the international agreements concerning POWs, which the Soviet Union didn´t do, while it hadn´t signed these international agreements.

@royhuang9715

2 жыл бұрын

Every major nation has war plans against other major nation just in case. Having a war plan doesn’t mean anything, you are making yourself sounds stupid. US got war plan against British, France and USSR. Does that mean US will go to war with British, France or USSR?

Thanks for historians that have their own point of view, I m tired of people repeating the same arguments, with no sense

Being a historian, is like being able to point finger retrospective when all facts are layed out, I personal think Finland did the best it could at the time being with the cards delt.. today Finland have survived and are still a member of Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland).

@sofussigvardt2962

2 жыл бұрын

Scandinavia only consists of Denmark Sweden and Norway

@redqueeen2950

2 жыл бұрын

Finland is not part of Scandinavia. They are part of the Nordic countries, along with Iceland. Fun fact, when Scotland were voting for independence, there were a lot of jokes about Scotland joining Scandinavia as we have a good relationship with them. Not an overly serious idea, but it was amusing as a private joke

Thanks for your discussion - It was both entertaining and informative as always - even if I don't agree with all your points. But that's what makes it interesting! Happy New Year.

TIK: recommending a book from Prit Buttar on 0:55. Me: halting the video to check Amazon, to find out that Prit Buttar wrote even more interesting books ... thanks for these tips!

I really liked the last 5 minutes of this video. :-)

@jondeare

4 жыл бұрын

And look at the replies here. OMG!

Hey TiK, could you cover some of the minor nations such as Hungary and Romania?

More fokus on Denmark please, even a seperat episode about the invasion, resistance, public sentiment etc. Thks in advance, great work!

@mabussubam512

5 жыл бұрын

Denmark could be as interesting as the courland pocket, I think.

Half the fun of your videos are the text that appears to clarify your point. Thanks for the great videos.

@TheImperatorKnight

5 жыл бұрын

If you think this is bad, wait until you see Thursday's video

There is fact i found funny about Finland's east front against Soviets: There was jewish soldiers in Finland army and they even had their own field synagoga at front line. At the same time with Finnish souldiers were fighting German soldiers side by side with Finnish jews.

My grandparents told me that Sweden was quite public concerning what they would do if the Germans invaded: Sweden would blow up the iron ore mines. I have never seen any public declarations about that though.

I'm not annoyed or ever likely to unsub just because Tik says something I disagree with, I learn a lot from this channel and have always found that there's a good reason that is usually explained in detail why Tik agrees or disagrees with different opinions. I like the way he puts forward the various arguments and explains them, I wish other historians were as thorough and open about the various points of view on these events. I suspect I'm not alone and this has a lot to do with Tik's popularity, that and the amazing detail in which he goes into these historic events ;).

I think Finland is semi-axis at best. Finland was in a unique position because it was forced into its alliance with Germany. What typifies the axis powers is that they wanted to safeguard their expansionism and allied in their expansionist and/or anti-communist endeavours. Finland might have fought with the axis forces extensively, but they do not fit in the underlying strategic/ideological strait of that group. Greater Finland does make for a good case to call them axis after all, however. In that regard you might say while they weren't axis by heart and allied with them out of necessity at first, eventually they were pulled into the full aspects of the axis expansionism. So you could argue either way, it's a borderline case. I would say they are more than just a co-belligerent, yet not fully axis either.

@vanefreja86

2 жыл бұрын

Like with Denmark during the Napoleonic wars. After the bombardement of Copenhagen by the British in 1807, we sided with Napoleon.

@coloradoing9172

2 жыл бұрын

@@vanefreja86 Denmark-Norway*

As I learn more about the economics of WW2 I realize that Scandinavia, Germany, the Baltic's, and Russia are ideal trade partners. Had capitalism ruled Germany & Russia instead they would have rules the world economically.

@TheImperatorKnight

5 жыл бұрын

You will probably enjoy my Thursday video

These are great videos. I'm working through all of them right now. I'd love a TIK perspective on the US Civil War, another war that is full of myths and incorrect assumptions.

Also: the one who controlled south of Sweden and Denmark could fairly easy control the ports of Germany. Airpower and sea power could force a lot of the German efforts to a grinding halt.

Swedo-German trading route was via Norway since Baltic sea is frozen like 1/2 of a year. Sweden is still using this path for trading and they don't have ports on Baltic coast

I don't think the "giant Finland" theory makes sense. All your arguments also works with the assumption that Finland just wanted back what the Soviets had stolen.

@TheTukaani

5 жыл бұрын

What I have read and learned this is the case. All though there were some "fanatics" who wanted this "giant Finland" (Suur Suomi) but they were minority. And allso I think when the war continued even they buried the idea of giant Finland.

@pm71241

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheTukaani It's also hard to imagine any country treated like Finland was in the Winter War, not taking the opportunity to undo the injustice if it presents it self only 1 year later. Heck... even after WWII, there were people in the Danish resistance considering whether to go to Montgomery and raise the question of getting Slesvig back. (lost in 1864)

@alexalexin9491

5 жыл бұрын

The theory of Finland wanting back what the Soviets had stolen is irrelevent due to the fact that the Finnish troops even captured Petrozavodsk that had never been Finnish. Now do some research and google what the Soviets had stolen, where Petrozavodsk is situated, and the sizes of the territories occupied by the Soviets in 1940 and by the Finns in 1941-1942. You will learn that they took back like 10-20 times as much. Getting to learn that the Finns built concentration camps for the Slavic part of the population is painful too because it ruins the image of the good-brave-and-fair-nation-fighting-a-monster created since 1939. But that's what history is about.

@Kyosti5000

3 жыл бұрын

Oh it has never made any sense. I'm sure there were some fanatics playing with the idea. The fact of the matter is that Finland was fighting for its continued existence. Once Britain forbid the transfer of supplies there were great risk of literally starving to death. So the only real option was to accept the help offered by the Germans and the help had some conditions. After the initial offence Mannerheim stopped the advancing troops shortly after the old line and refused to participate in further acts of war despite of German pressure. Mannerheim also forbid the destruction of muurman supplyline of which Airo said in an interview "We could have taken it easily." (roughly at 35min.) kzread.info/dash/bejne/h2iFl9RtYpy7oZs.html Vereker tactfully pointed out that it would be unfair to forget that British policy “may have contributed to drive Finland into the arms of Germany, and that drowning men are apt to clutch at straws. Once we force Finns into making a pact with the devil,” he continued, “it would be invidious to complain that they are coming off second best, seeing that the devil is not easy person to deal with.” He concluded by stating “I defy any country in Finland’s position not to make some attempt to trim its sail according to the wind.” uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6697/Ollila_Mylon.pdf In the war the smaller nations need to turn every stone to maintain their continued existence. The pressure on the people making those hard decisions must have been overwhelming. To the superpowers smaller nations are merely pawns in a game, nothing more. I'm sure Finland made their own share of war crimes as that happens in war. It is very easy to judge the doings and not doings afterwards. The thing is I am forever grateful for those men that ensured our independence whatever they did. I only hope none of that needs to be done ever again.

@leifnordh9109

3 жыл бұрын

@@alexalexin9491 the area that Finland lost..aka Soviet stole was not wild forests areas...it was a vital industrialized area with The important city of Viborg ..10% of the total land area of Finland.

Very interestingly the British and the Russians rushed to capture Denmark (and by extension Norway) at the end of the war. The Brits beat the Russian to Copenhagen by 8hours, but the Russians took Bornholm and refused to hand it over right away. Both sides were already gearing up for a post war power struggle. That’s probably also why the allies let Iceland get free from Denmark in 44, just in case the Russians got to DK first...

@norwegianboyee

5 жыл бұрын

Didnt't Russia give back Norwegian territory relatively easily after occupying Finnmark? They recognize Norway as an independent state and we have traditionally had surprisingly good relations with Russia in comparison to many others of it's neighbors, even considering the cold war.

@lovablesnowman

5 жыл бұрын

@@norwegianboyee apparently the Soviets actually behaved themselves in Norway too. As in the Red Army behaved like a civilised army of liberation (for once)

@skalderman

5 жыл бұрын

Was DK part of axis too after the invasion? I imagine a lot of recruitment made by nazis altough I havent seen any discussion about denmarks role during the war

@Nygaard2

5 жыл бұрын

@skalderman Denmark was de-facto a collaborating nation from April 9 40 until 1943 when the Germans got tired of the relaxed attitude of the Danish authorities towards Jews and saboteurs. But our Ambassador to the US more or less made a personal coup and cooperated with the British and Americans long before 1941. That’s why Greenland and Iceland were occupied by the Brits with his blessings and later passed openly to the Americans as agreed. The fact that the Brits really wanted Denmark to be on their side after the war, and the propaganda victory of the Danish Jews being saved (mostly), also helped us after the war. But DK did provide quite a few fanatics to the SS divisions, many of whom died in the Kurland pocket, btw.

@skalderman

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the thorough answer

FINLAND IS THE ONLY COUNTRY TO FULLY PAY ALL REPERATIONS AFTER THE WAR I WAS TOLD, WHILE WORKING IN FINLAND

Thanks !

Interesting perspective

Slight correction: Scandinavia consists of: Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The Nordic countries consist of: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and the autonomous territories: The Faroe Islands, Åland and Greenland. Svalbard for example is not an autonomous region, as it is an archipelago that is part of the sovereign state of Norway.

Anyone ever watched “soviet storm, ww2 in the east”? It’s a documentary series from the soviet perspective.

@ElGrandoCaymano

3 жыл бұрын

Lots of CGI of German tanks' turrets being blown off, but never a scratch on the Soviet tanks. 4 episodes are German victories, 14 are Soviet ones. Overall though, it's a pretty good effort and the writers try to be neutral and worth a watch with unseen archive video and also different focus than the western/German view (eg. Rzhev, Stalin Line in 1941 and the battles at Lake Ladoga & Schluesselburg).

good video any chance of covering the anglo-soviet invasion of iran I've never seen anyone do a video on it you don't really hear much about it.

The British invaded Norway the Germans simply beat them to it.

@hermitoldguy6312

5 жыл бұрын

Not quite. The British would have invaded Norway, but the Germans beat them to it (by one day). So when the British arrived they were not invaders, but foreign aid.

5 жыл бұрын

If the british had invaded Norway before Germany, I believe Norway would have ended up in a similar situation as Finland did. Unwilling semi allies of Germany. Norwegians are like finns, they really don’t like others telling them what to do.

@Clem_Fandango11

4 жыл бұрын

Ummm....you missed the French. The were a massive part of it as well.

I though that read somewhere - the US pressured Finland to not cut off the road north and cut of the lend-lease supplies to the USSR

5 жыл бұрын

Mark Holm Not everything put on paper is true.

I think the Finnish army did not attack Leningrad because in 1942 already the Finnish High Command knew that Germany wasn't able to defeat the Soviet Union so they just tried to stall and already tried to make peace in 1943.

I agree with you about Finland... just not the use of the word 'irregardless' :/

....and 13 divisions would've been a drop in the bucket on the Eastern Front from '44 onward. Great question by that guy Tik. Courland 4 after this, haven't seen it yet. Thank you Tik!

@erikhalvorseth3950

4 жыл бұрын

I suppose the number ‘13 divisions’ correlates with some specific time span. Fact is- the number of troops allocated to Norway was way bigger than 13 divs at full strength/15k. Adolf had close to 400k troops here when it peaked in ‘44(army navy air force)

thank you for your patience, i would agree that t34/76-t34/85 and kv,s were war wining machines if used differently, but truly adequate armor was mostly wasted by all sides faced with well trained atk guns which were way cheaper to produce and deploy.we have the luxury of discussing thses things while warm dry and well fed, and i thank you for expanding our understanding of those times. ........................................................................nancy and robert w.

Fun fact: Heirich Himmler was interested in ancient finnic poetry and he wanted to make traditional finnish instrument Kantele the ceremonial instrument of the SS. Himmler saw Finnish and Karelian poet singers as "aryan sages" or something like that. In Himmler's mind this was proof that "Aryans" originated from the north.

@sextuspompeius1266

Жыл бұрын

What an odd guy

TIK rock on brotha!

I think a more accurate translation of Suur-Suomi would be 'Greater-Finland'. And I think you are right as well, the official narrative that I learned in school was that Finland only fought to retake its lost territories, and invaded further for strategic depth. But the idea and ideal of a Greater-Finland had its last hooray in the late 1930's and 1940's, having had more mainstream popularity around the time Finland gained independence and during the Civil War as well as the Kinship Wars. The popularity of the idea died down after the Treaty of Tartu 1920, but come 1941 and the Continuation War, there is even support for the idea among the government (and of course Mannerheim...).

@alexalexin9491

5 жыл бұрын

" invaded further for strategic depth." this is a universal excuse! basically the same was done by the USSR in 1939, when the Baltic states and western Belorussia and Ukraine were retaken. Getting strategic depth on the eve of a great war.

@jussi3218

5 жыл бұрын

I think I prefer the term 'Jätti-Suomi' to 'Suur-Suomi'.

@kalevi5814

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexalexin9491 Mannerheim thought that having occupied soviet land would help with the peace terms.

@tomabaza

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexalexin9491 The difference is in doing it during the war.

@MrTurpasauna

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexalexin9491 In 1939 USSR wasn't really at war with anyone yet, except with poland for a short while but there wasn't much resistance after germans had hammered them for weeks. Those were pure annexations and opportunistic land grabs in pretty much peacetime. Meanwhile in 1941 Finland was at war with a massive country and river Svir south of Petrozavodsk shortened the frontline immensely.

I recall a biography of Admiral Fisher, where he was told by a drunken German Official at a party about how close Berlin was to the sea, and vulnerable to a seaborne invasion. I am unable to tell you the Author. Fisher went as far as inventing ships which landed at the beach to disgorge troops, which were used to ill effect at Gallipoli. I understand that it is outside of your area of expertise, but it does reveal Germany's fear of the Northern front.

Requesting a "blessed be Halder" snippet vid

@TheImperatorKnight

5 жыл бұрын

With Halder all things are possible.

Declaration of war By G.B. with Finland 6th December 1941 ( supposedly due to their advance beyond pre-war boundary , even if it was only a few miles )

As usual fanatstic video that replies my question as well.

Will you ever do a Battlestorm series about theNorwegian campaign?? It's almost never covered anywhere and I would love your perspective.

@TheImperatorKnight

5 жыл бұрын

If I do it will not be for a while. The priority is Courland, then Stalingrad, then probably back to North Africa for Rommel's Second Desert Offensive.

@henleinkosh2613

5 жыл бұрын

Also Timeghost's World War 2 in real time have recently had some good stuff on the campaign (though it doesn't delve very deep)

Norway was also the source for Germany's heavy water for their nuclear program. Fantastic story of the mission to sabotage the factory is, "The Winter Fortress: The Epic Mission to Sabotage Hitler's Atomic Bomb" by Neal Bascomb

Good thing you put in the footnote when you said what Finland did was fine and justified. :p

@rickbeniers667

5 жыл бұрын

haha, almost triggered LOL.

Also- Finland was biggest wood supplier and as far as I know only supplier for molybdenum what was used to harden steal (and nickel as Pekka Mäkelä said just before me)

@mabussubam512

5 жыл бұрын

Didn't Finland lost the nickel-mine due to Winter War to the Soviets ?

@Jhorsma

5 жыл бұрын

No, we did keep them - we lose them when Continuation War ended with Paris peace treaty

@mabussubam512

5 жыл бұрын

@@Jhorsma I see.

@askeladden7930

5 жыл бұрын

Norway was also a molybdenum supplier, with the Knaben mine.

I think most of the metals from Sweden and Finland had to be exported via the Norwegian port of Narvik, which is why northern Norway was important, apart from the convoi raiding aspect.

Norway also had some rare elements for making certain alloys, like molybdenum were reduced in due to allied sea mines and airstrikes the quality of German steel for armor went down. This is why Tiger II tanks despite having thicker armor than the Tiger I, were often easier to penetrate than the Tiger I.

@paananenjouko1480

2 жыл бұрын

The production of molybdenum for Germany as the only supplier in Europe took place in North Karelia in Finland. In the village of Mätäsvaara.

I have to love all your videos. It's so good to hear a take on Hitler and the Soviets that wasn't just written by a Communist or an obsessive "Oh My God Hitler" person.

Hi Tik,liked your vids with the maps on the Courland pocket.One i would like to see you do is the Allies trying to take Caen in June - July 1944 Very confusing reading about it with out any maps.An interesting book i bought secondhand recently for £3.85 is called `Steel Rain` by Tim Ripley.Its called Waffen-SS Panzer Battles in the West 1944-1945.Good info and pics about all the formations and leadership in the SS.Haven`t read it yet just glanced through it. Got it from `World of Books` they have another copy on their site at the moment 30-4-19 for £16.I must have been lucky to have got my supposed used copy for what i paid as it looks in new condition to me.cheers mate Chris

Glad you opened up the comments again, as the discussions here often as are as enlightening... well, as diverse as the videos. I must say I really like your videos, because even when you are wrong (half the time) you seldom if ever substitute arguments and thoughts with opinions. That alone would be enough to make me subscribe even if you were wrong all the time. Now to why Finland was NOT part of the Axis, mainly the same points as Finland didn't attack Leningrad. Mannerhem accepted the idea, or least not actively oppose the concept of Great FInland (all traditionally Finnish speaking territories united in one nation, but he was adamant that Finland's commitment would go no further than this. Unlike Romania for instance, no Finnish units supported Germany past this objective. In short, Finland had an enemy in common with Germany, which make them aligned with the Axis, but not part off them.

Didn’t Norway also have the heavy water, deuterium?

Great videos as always. Anyone can re-state facts. It is the analysis which is valued. Why not a video on the failure of German forces to take Murmansk (and Arkhangelsk)? The Finns, as well, did not really cut the Murman rail line where it mattered, either. This area was one end of the A-A line so plenty important. I have my own theories and as usual it is multi-factoral. Sitting here in northern Ontario (we had snow in mid -October!), I am still interested in winter warfare from my previous training. Others may be fascinated as well.

33:16 Irregardless is not a word.

Also, I would like to point out that Germany had AOK Norwegen HQ in Finland for several years. A lot of AOK's force was also deemed to face and fight russians in N.Finland/Kola peninsula. Maybe that's another reason for those 13 divisions in Norway (direct contact with Soviets+theatre of war reserves).

Woohoo it's monday!

Hi TIK, when will you be doing videos on more north Africa campaigns ?

@yathusanthulasi

5 жыл бұрын

after battlestorm stalingrad

The main Reason for Finland to take leningrad is to free German troops from the North, enabling Germany to use those in the battle of Moscow (Or in the south) That would be good for Finland since it increases the chances of a Russian defeat.

@MeinungMann

5 жыл бұрын

That's what I thought!

@MeinungMann

5 жыл бұрын

But well , since Germans themselves didn't want/couldn't take the city, why would Finnish even bother? German millitary was superior to Finnish so if they didn't get the city, how could Finland?

@torbjornkvist

5 жыл бұрын

@@MeinungMann The Finns never supported the idea to even assist with Leningrad. They had a very realistic view of the war, they understood the Russian abilities and the weakness of the Germans. Everything they did had to be balanced towards a German failure.

@smolensk83

5 жыл бұрын

So why did Finland even enter the continuation war then? You dont enter a war youre not sure you can win unless you have to. Finland didnt have to enter the continuation war. You cant "Hedge" when you enter a war as a small country against a superpower.

@torbjornkvist

5 жыл бұрын

@@smolensk83 Why did Finland enter the Continuation War? It's obvious that they wanted Karelia back, even Petsamo in the north. You have to see this strategically. Finland was hoping to get their land back and keep it through negotiation later on, just as they talked them self out of total destruction after the Winter War. They did not succeed with the land, but they talked them self out again in 1944, together with hard fighting.

To TIK: as a Finn I'm on the same page about axis classification. However, where and when did we have concentration camps (prisoner of war camps we had but camps intented for extermination..?)? Facts please. Germans had prisoner camps as well in Finland, but I honestly don't know for certain what kind of camps they were. Maybe you can educate me on this as well. Cheers mate!

@RedGunBullets

5 жыл бұрын

Thomas Wirkkala im not sure were i read it but i actually saw a big documentation on not much know details of the war between Finland and the soviets, and all documents support the fact that the soviet prisoners in finland got a "good" / humane treatment AFTER Stalingrad happened.... and before that while granted being far from nazi concentration camps were still regularly starving and working to death and after Stalingrad suddenly the finns rediscovered their humanity and treated them well even sending them to live and work with family farmers in finland

@WandererRTF

5 жыл бұрын

@@RedGunBullets It was not related to Stalingrad in any manner. And even the change in the conditions of the POW and interned civilians changed before Stalingrad as well. First you need to realize that Finns had never expected the Soviets to surrender in such masses as what they did in the 1941 - if i recall correctly Finns had prepared at most for around 20 000 POWs - instead they ended up with more than 60 000. They had expected the Soviets to evacuate civilians too but actually ended up having tens of thousands Karelians and Russians living in the area they controlled. The system was never expected to cope with such numbers - add to this the mobilization at such a scale as what Finland did and there really were few resources that could be used to help any one. What this meant in practice was that accommodations for the POWs were at some places good and in others utterly dreadful (pretty much just prefabricated cardboard 'tents'). Other supplies like clothes were also in extremely short supply and somewhat ironically the problem was exacerbated by some of the Allied policies. For example Finland had wanted to buy either cloth or clothes for the POWs from Sweden but UK forbid this - as that cloth was imported from the UK and therefore it could only be used on their approval. But these 'merely' meant hardships - the real problem was that Finland simply didn't have enough food. Or rather there was barely enough in quantity but very much lacking in quality. People not confined could resort to either black market, foraging, or trading with rural folk or relatives. Those confined, like POWs, internees, and even some other prisoners in Finland could not and suffered greatly. However main culprit was not starvation, but instead malnutrition and related diseases, so quite often those dying remained fairly healthy looking until just before they died. Those civilians confined to camps suffered in similar manner. At the peak around 1/3 of the ethnic Russian civilians were confined to camps. It is worth remembering that the Soviets did practice scorched earth policies and that Finns did not allow civilians to live at or near the front line, nor did they allow civilians to live in areas with high partisan activities, so there were fair bit of civilians who had to be housed somewhere. First camps the Finns had were just city blocks (without any fences) and old Soviet era gulag/prison camps. Similar lack of resources like that facing the POWs affected the civilian internees. Finns did try to move people back to their homes or just somewhere out from the camps but it wasn't quite that easy. Most of the POW and internee deaths occurred during the winter of 1941/42 and the spring/summer of 1942. This is when the lack of food hit Finland the hardest - Finns had bought grain from Germany in winter of 1941/42 but sea ice grew strong in that winter and the grain shipments sat stuck on the ice quite far into the spring (worth understanding that excluding connections to USSR/Russia Finland is logistically an island). Trying to move civilians away from the camps and using POWs as farmhands were attempts to alleviate the problem as far as it could. As far as I'm aware the POWs were not strictly speaking forced to work but in practice had to since by working they would be given extra rations (which may have actually worsened the problem since there was only limited amount of supplies to begin with). Finns did favor the Finnic ethnicities (like Karelians) over Russians in the camps to a certain extent, especially in 1941 & 1942. And they did try to separate different ethnicities and/or political activists from the more ordinary POWs. Finns did have some plans on relocating the ethnic Russians over the border once the war ended. This was not actually that strange in that era - allies themselves carried out such population transfers after the WW II. In the post was trials it was established that Finnish guards (or those otherwise involved in handling the POWs) had committed 42 murders and 342 other homicides - additionally, seven Soviet POWs had been shot on their own request, and ten POWs had been maltreated unto death. Plenty of information can be found - even in English - from Lars Westerlund work (2008) "Prisoners of War and Internees: A Book of Articles by the National Archives".

Finland might have been interested getting greater-Finland in south-east (slightly bigger than area, which were lost in Winter war), but I don't believe they ever had intention to occupy land in North according to a map (20:10) since there weren't even any Finnish troops under Finnish command in Lapland/North. All the operations in North were under German command and taking area (especially destroying the train tracks) and controlling mine in Petsamo were German interest, not Finnish. Another point I want to make about Leningrad. One reason why Mannerheim didn't want to close northern line and help starve civilian in Leningrad could be also purely for empathetic reasons. Mannerheim lived in Russia for quite long, served for Russian Tsar Nicolas II, and he also had a Russian wife and children with her. Mannerheim had much love for Russians, but he hated Bolsheviks/Communism/Lenin, but not Russian people itself. Lastly, the word concentration camp is slightly misleading. For example, The USA had concentration camps too. But Finland, neither USA (among many other nations), didn't have Nazi concentration camps or extermination camps. That is completely different thing.

@eijakatriina

5 жыл бұрын

I just want to also add that Mannerheim went school and served for the Russian Tsar in Leningrad (=Saint Petersburg) and therefore he probably knew the city and its people quite well.

Well... and Finland also threw out the Germans in the end. It's kinda like Denmark fought with Napoleon ... we also didn't have a choice.

What about (the often forgotten) Iceland and Fall Ikarus?

On the finland axis question, its regardless or iregarding not iregardless. (thats a double natgative)

How dare include Finland in Scandinavia! I don't really care too much, but still.. Not cool Perkele.

@CalimirRPG

5 жыл бұрын

A lot of people call Finland part of Scandinavia even though we are technically not a Scandinavian country. Just a Nordic country which also Iceland counts as. It is however a lot simpler to call all the Nordic countries Scandinavian since a tons of people haven't studied/don't care about the geography of northern Europe enough to separate them.

@NaQu2

5 жыл бұрын

@@CalimirRPG You know that Scandinavian Peninsula includes Sweden, Norway and part of Finland right? (no Denmark). Or if you talk about Scandic mountains then countries there are Norway, Sweden and Finland. If you speak about Scandic culture or history, then countries are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Finland is not included only if you speak Scandic languages. Its fair to say that in all aspects how you can define Scandic people, Norway and Sweden are most Scandic and Finland is next inline. Main reason that Denmark is not part of Scandic Penisule neither have Scandic mountains there.

@acetanker3101

4 жыл бұрын

As a finn i agree... Scandinavians are softer...

Great stuff. A little off topic, I remember before you had mentioned that you did play wargames...are there any PC strategic games that you currently play? (When you not making videos ;-) ) Finnish forces available to Germany 5 X 2-3 Inf / 1 X 1-4 Airforce....according to Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. ;-) Cheers.

Sweden and Finland: The enemy of my enemy.. Is still kinda my enemy but we'll play it cool for now

Kindov a meme but the wood icon could also be a mushroom cloud. Norway's heavy water facilities seem a little bit important.

As far as I know Saint Petersburg is called "Venice of the north" for being built on marsh, rivers and for its number of bridges. When I compare it with Stalingrad, which looks more open, I wouldn't like to be general ordered to take the city. Especially with that number of Soviet troops in.

@kalevi5814

5 жыл бұрын

Need to remember that Mannerheim has himself served in Saint Petersburg so it didn't surprise me that he didn't want to destroy the beautiful city.

As far as I remember you had in a previous video on distribution of new troops to the different groups just before battle of Stalingrad proved that North and Middelfronts get more troops than the army at Stalingrad got even this front was the most important front so that seems to either a big mistake or actual a proof of that the front at Lenningrad actual must have some major importance for the german strategy. And maybe the argument here is the same as why the germans had so many divisions in Norway. In that picture it suddently make sense. However as I read another place the distribution of fuel to the Lenningrad actual was so low that any operation into the offensive was impossible. So the major plan for Lenningrad must had been "just stay put".

Finland has never been a part of Scandinavia. Scandinavia = Denmark, Sweden & Norway Nordic countries = Scandinavia, Finland and Iceland. Great episode though!

@Nygaard2

5 жыл бұрын

@fratta21 That’s just silly... The distinction between the Nordic countries and Scandinavia is out dated... I for one would welcome Finland in Scandinavia, Åland as well (which you forgot) and the Samic nation (which you also ignored), etc, etc. If you REALLY want to talk about Scandinavia as a geographical unit, then Denmark shouldn’t be included...

@raxit1337

5 жыл бұрын

@@Nygaard2 What? He didn't forget Åland, it's not a country, it's a part of Finland. Scandinavia is an ethno-linguistic term, pertaining to an ethnicity and language that Finns do not have. Finns are great, but they're not scandinavians. You might find it silly, but it makes perfect sense.

@ninaakari5181

4 жыл бұрын

@@raxit1337 Finland is geographically partly Scandinavian (Northern Finland), culturally tiny bit Scandinavian (Finnish-Swedes). I don't think Finns want to be Scandinavian them selves more than they are factually. It is more like Scandinavians think they want to be. Any Finn I have spoken to say they are definetly not Scandinavian :D

@raxit1337

4 жыл бұрын

@@ninaakari5181 I know, that's what i'm saying :^) And when I say finns, i'm referring to native finnish speakers. EDIT: Although, as a scandinavian, I can't really fault other scandinavians for not knowing much about finland or finnish culture. Most of us have never been there at all, and have no relationship with the country :(