Scandinavia and the World
 

Comments #9503892:


sagas

0
Be careful what you say 14 7, 8:09am

'@real'-cool-cat
"Erm... Lapland war was war. Lot of people died there. There were 3 times more Nazis. And that's just nothing?"

Its a drop of nothing in the context of WW2. More people died in the Pearl Harbor attack than the Lapland war let alone any of the true fronts and their major battles. A few of which were right next to Finland. Seriously, the only way you could react with surprise to this is to be so unfamiliar with WW2 as to even be unfamiliar with Finland's participation in WW2.
It counting as war doesn't make it equivalent to any conflict you want, that's completely nonsensical.

"
And in Winter war, our army was in really bad shape. It is called "Model Cajander", if you want to check it out. Not even proper clothes. Russians had Snowmobiles, we only had horses. Material difference is so unbelievable, 30 tanks against 6541 tanks. Difference in manpower was also astonishing. And you are telling that WE had an unfair advantage?"

And the Soviet army was down 30,000 officers from the past couple years, and yes also poorly equipped and not up to the standards they would have by the point that they broke the Nazis.
Tell me, how did Finland resist them. If you find yourself describing tactical and strategic victories over clumsy larger Soviet forces, congratulations. That fits the bill.

"I don't know should I be insulted or flattered, "There's only ten Russians armed to their teeth against one Finn in pyjamas. That's so unfair... for Russians"."

The Russian is fighting on the Finn's home turf with inexperienced low quality officers and is being picked off in the snow by effective guerrilla and defensive tactics.
Again though what's your point about all of this? That Finland is invincible and would never ever be beaten by a Nazi invasion, or 1944 Soviet invasion?

"And two things you got completely wrong. 1. I am not a nationalist."

You are by the very definition if in making a historical argument you make a point based around just how much cooler and braver your group is. Bonus points for the argument also hinging on being better than another group in the process.

"2. We still wouldn't surrender. "

So Finland alone in all of Europe wouldn't surrender (even occupied parts of the Soviet Union essentially surrendered and were full of collaborators), and yet you are totally not a nationalist.
This is stupid. You should be embarrassed.







America wearing England's shirt