twilight2000-digest Saturday, September 13 1997 Volume 1996 : Number 055 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Russian fizzle Re: Russian fizzle Re: Russian attack Russian equipment Re: Russian fizzle VS: Russian attack Re: Russian fizzle Re: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: Russian attack (fwd) Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:03:34 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: Russian attack You can almost count on that. I believe most of surviving Finnish soldiers would start (maybe) partisan activity. But there is nobody coming to help us... >Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:10:59 -0400 >From: Matt Aistrich >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Subject: Re: Russian attack > >Mikko Pesonen wrote: > >> This is little bit stupid question, but I want to have peoples opinion >> about this. IF Russia would attack Finland what would be the result an= >d >> who would come to assist ?? > >They=B4d run over Finland, killing me in the process. As usual, no one wo= >uld >come to assist. That=B4s what neurality is all about. Then they=B4d have = >the >country, but also a large number of very active partisans in their hands. > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 23:03:13 +0200 From: Niklas Svensson Subject: Re: Russian attack Hmmm..Your probably right, I'll just stay at Gotland and try to beat the russians with my so good artillery ;-)...Not!!! If I get there in time :-) maybe. How long would it take the Russians to travel from S:t Petersburg and land som ships (RoRo) on the eastern shores of Gotland? 6-12h? And how long for me (from mainland Sweden) ~3h Naaa, I'll stay home and watch the fighting on CNN :-) Matt Aistrich wrote: > Niklas Svensson wrote: > > > I'm not sure about the result, but WE will be there to help you > fight > > the russian bear :-) > > Yes, with Sweden's excellent record on taking part in wars... > > I don't think so. I think you'd mobilize your forces but try to get > the > Russians to stop with Finland, not provoking them. Naturally a number > of > volunteers would join the Finnish Army, as they did half a century > ago. But > all of you... hmmm... and do we want soldiers who wear hair nets... > hmmm... > :-) - -- "a Swede called NixxoN" *************************************************************** * Cyber PObox nixxon@webname.com * 2nd Cyber PObox niklas.svensson@mbox323.swipnet.se * Cyber home http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-18340/ * WiS (webmaster) e-mail warlords@mail.org (gaming group) * ICQ number 235 699 *************************************************************** errare humanum est ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:54:02 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Russian attack Niklas Svensson wrote: > How long would it take the Russians to travel from S:t Petersburg and > land som ships (RoRo) on the eastern shores of Gotland? 6-12h? > And how long for me (from mainland Sweden) ~3h The Russians figured they'd take Finland in a week. They tried for years and didn't succeed. It's not over when they're only at the border... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:52:23 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Russian attack Niklas Svensson wrote: > Hmmm..Your probably right, I'll just stay at Gotland and try to beat the > russians with my so good artillery ;-)...Not!!! Well, that's what you were waiting for the last time, right? :-) No, actually Sweden was the greatest help Finland had during the war years (not counting the ally, Germany), there is no denying that. And Finland has paid back by being the buffer state which has guaranteed peace and fat times for Sweden. Not fighting was a good choice during WWII - -- provided you had the choice, of course. And that you weren't the U.S. > How long would it take the Russians to travel from S:t Petersburg and > land som ships (RoRo) on the eastern shores of Gotland? 6-12h? That threat exists with or without a war against Finland. In fact, were Sweden to help Finland in a war, that is exactly the threat the Swedes woud be facing. So wouldn't it be better to remain neutral? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:51:33 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Russian attack Teemu Niemi wrote: > > I checked some answer for this (Niklas Svensson's and Mad Mike's), there > just a little too much optimism involved. If some how Russia would > decide to attack Finland (this by the way is our nightmare, if > Zhirinovsky comes to president), Zhirinovsky's an idiot but for the most part. Any attempt in the current situation for Russia to stomp on the Balts or the Finns is not going to be leikd by Washington even if there's some ignorant Redneck in 1600 PA AVE. Twilight 2000 is a continuation of the Cold War. While Finland and Sweden has moved more towards the Western camp including the EU/EC and Washington's new ideas on NATO's role as an instrument of collective security and making sure liberal democractic values are here to stay (at least in Europe)- not so if there was a real Red Army with a Soviet Union that practiced something akin to the Brezhnev doctrine. > I doubt that is there anybody helping > us. Finland just is not so important, that it should be protected by > NATO, WEU or even Sweden or Norway. If anybody tries to invade Finland is going to take a beating that state has a fairly good army and knows how to fight. I suspect in Twilight Finland's ground forces will be fighting a 21st Century version of the Mannerheim line but with better arty and come winter try and send in ski infantry battalions to inflitrate Soviet lines and harass Red Army units (provided Ivan can stay in one place and their doctrine stresses on getting off their asses and always moving forward) Still unlike Sweden Finland isn't militarily self sufficient. Combat a/c have always come overseas- now it's F/A-18C/Ds- but again variants of the MiG-21 and the Draken. In a Twilight universe who knows Western a/c may not be an option due to classic neutrality (in favor of Moscow) so Su-25 Frogfoots or MiG-29s.... Tanks well Finland uses various T-72s.... > I am pretty sure that Sweden and Norway with NATO tries to keep them > both away from Russian attack by doing some talking. Only if talks are > negative, then specially Sweden could help some way Finland. Norway would > start to move its troops to northern border to block possibly attack. Again talk's cheap. Should the Soviets try a broadfront assault to bog NATO resources in Northern Europe the Swedes and Finns may end up talking to Brussels and scream at SACEUR for more of anything considering that NATO has to worry about Germany (which let's be honest is more important) resources will be tight. And if America's fighting not only in Europe but in the MidEast, Korea, and Latin America downright impossible even with mobilizing all the reserves. This is a three plus front war and everything goes... > Result in this war is bloody, it could last maybe even years, because > Russians really don't have so good combat history, as you can remember > some fightings in Afganistan or Chechnya. Russian military forces have > low morale because they haven't got paid they salary and their combat > vehicles are bit by bit going old (designing new and repairing old > costs). But these are only my opinions. Soviet military doctrine plays up on their strengths. Lots of troops and lots of equipment so roll over the enemy with superior mobility and overwhelm them with superior firepower. Even in slow attrition the Red Army will come out as victors. In TW2000- I have a feeling that competence and morale's going to be higher than the current Russian army. Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:02:41 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Russian attack Matt Aistrich wrote: > Attacking Norway would be a part of an all-out war. Yep. While it might be reading tea leaves- Soviet operations in Northern Europe and Southern Europe will be in support of the massive invasion of Germany. All out war. Probably a good idea if SACEUR released some B series freefall tac nukes (just in case) > And that is pretty much > the one hope of Finland: in that case the Russians might send second-tier > troops to Finland. But remember the Soviets have a lot of good hardware even if indivdually their soldiers aren't all that bright- correction it's the inability to speak one language. > With Finns preparing to do battle with Russians again for the past 50 years, > we do have fair stockpiles of spare parts, and industry which can produce > them. Planes are being upgraded to Hornets, for which I would assume we'd > still get spares. Besides, considering the unequality of forces, I don't > really expect our armored vehicles to exist much more than a day or two of > fighting, anyhow... F/A-18s only came within the last four years or so.... A total rearrangement of the balance of power/terror in Europe. With the demise of the USSR has meant neutral states like Finland can choose American/ Western hardware without the poltiical pressure... In an ongoing Cold War I don't think it would have been possible for Finland to buy Hornets.... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:47:55 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Russian attack Niklas Svensson wrote: > > Hmmm..Your probably right, I'll just stay at Gotland and try to beat the > russians with my so good artillery ;-)...Not!!! You wish tough guy ^_-. Remember Ivan's amd about arty. More the better. Only people in the world who have artillery diviisons... Even the US has field artillery brigades but nowadays they're mainly National Guard outfits and sometimes spilt between two or more states. > If I get there in time :-) maybe. > How long would it take the Russians to travel from S:t Petersburg and > land som ships (RoRo) on the eastern shores of Gotland? 6-12h? Amphibious operations require complete dominance of the air and the sea. That doesn't happen some very important cargo's gonna end up on the bottom of the ocean along with some of your grunts. The Soviet navy doesn't have much light dock landing ships- Ivan Rogov and Alligator class to tranport the equipment and personnel of their naval infantry brigades. OTOH- Soviet airborne- VDV divisions which comes directly under the thumb of the Soviet military staff/defense minister- can hit the ground and have enough firepower to take the turf unless they get hit by an armor heavy force. Hell Red Army paratroopers are mechanized infantry... So here's the obvious- the timing. Airborne and naval infantry units must be able to set themselves in secure pockets and then wait for motorized infantry divisions to come over via land routes... That's the tricky part... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:51:05 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Russian fizzle question: All this talk about should Russia attack, and the armchair general commentaries that floows has made me wonder something....... Are you talking in the present tense? I do remember a few replies saying so and so would do this, and this would happen, etc..... I wonder if you are refering to the russia (USSR) of the 1st ed. twilight, or the current Russia. The Current Russia would be hard pressed to commit troops to the field on any level, and the troops they have now, quite frankly, suck. I think their airforce pilots get an average of like 15 flight hours a year training time.......................................................................... then there's soldiers selling their uniforms weapons, etc., on the black market for food................. and nukes dissapearing, etc, etc, etc., etc., ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 01:33:32 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Russian fizzle > I wonder if you are refering to the russia (USSR) of the 1st ed. twilight, or > the current Russia. Yes, the discussion has been going on on multiple levels. I took the initial question to be one regarding today (there being an official T2k timeline for Finland, too) and have been writing about today's situation. When Mad Mike has referred to the T2k situation, to my understanding he has stated so. Despite all the problems with the Russian armed forces, remember what a great unifier a war can be to a country. It tends to shift the blame for poor living conditions, too... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:34:32 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: Russian attack >Mad Mike wrote: > > Zhirinovsky's an idiot but for the most part. Any attempt >in the current situation for Russia to stomp on the Balts or >the Finns is not going to be leikd by Washington even if there's >some ignorant Redneck in 1600 PA AVE. Yes, I know Zhirinovsky's an idiot, but because he thinks Finland is part of Russia (as somebody maybe knew, we got our independence in 1917, when Russians fought in revolution) I believe there is some threat (and greater if he gets somehow elected to president) to war... But if you really think that USA or NATO starts to transfer troops to help Baltics or Finland, then I suggest you to read some history... maybe US citizens believe their country is "police" here, but Finland just don't have any oilfields to get USA awake. > If anybody tries to invade Finland is going to take a beating >that state has a fairly good army and knows how to fight. I suspect in >Twilight Finland's ground forces will be fighting a 21st Century version >of the Mannerheim line but with better arty and come winter try and send >in ski infantry battalions to inflitrate Soviet lines and harass Red >Army >units (provided Ivan can stay in one place and their doctrine stresses >on getting off their asses and always moving forward) > Still unlike Sweden Finland isn't militarily self sufficient. >Combat a/c have always come overseas- now it's F/A-18C/Ds- but again >variants of the MiG-21 and the Draken. In a Twilight universe who knows >Western a/c may not be an option due to classic neutrality (in favor >of Moscow) so Su-25 Frogfoots or MiG-29s.... Tanks well Finland uses >various T-72s.... > Of course, because I also am part of our big reserve army (every man in Finland is in reserve to age of 50?), I agree that any army who try to invade us, gets some beating, and although we have better equipment that in Winter War, you shouldn't rely to Twilight:2000 world. Finnish a/c, or at least Drakens were from Sweden, because if war would start Finland could get spare parts anf new equipment from Sweden. Maybe same goes to T-72s, (we used captured tanks against Russians in Winter and Continuation War) But we just can't rely anymore to better skiing skills, because most of Russian troops in Winter War were from southern parts of Soviet Union (some of them saw snow first [and last] time in battle) didn't have even equipment to ski, troops travelled by roads and so on... > Again talk's cheap. Should the Soviets try a broadfront >assault to bog NATO resources in Northern Europe the Swedes and Finns >may end up talking to Brussels and scream at SACEUR for more of anything >considering that NATO has to worry about Germany (which let's be honest >is more important) resources will be tight. And if America's fighting >not only in Europe but in the MidEast, Korea, and Latin America >downright impossible even with mobilizing all the reserves. This is >a three plus front war and everything goes... > Of course talk's cheap, and of course, if Russians attack Finland starts to asking help from Europe and NATO. Main question basicly was: What happens if Russians attack Finland AND JUST FINLAND? Finland comes 80 years old 6th December 1997 and we have fought one civil war, two wars against Russians and one small against Nazi-Germany, so who, do you think is our main opponent if war starts? Although even Sweden planned attacking Finland in early 20's, Russian (or Soviet Union) is always the "bear who sleeps". > > Soviet military doctrine plays up on their strengths. Lots >of troops and lots of equipment so roll over the enemy with superior >mobility and overwhelm them with superior firepower. Even in slow >attrition the Red Army will come out as victors. In TW2000- I have >a feeling that competence and morale's going to be higher than the >current Russian army. > Hey, I didn't say anything about us winning that maybe-war. Just as somebody mentioned, this country becomes full of partisans after war. Finns just have to rely to their movement in forests or in snow and fighting is more like VC forces did in Vietnam to US forces. (shot from there, grenade from here, and you never know where enemy is) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:36:50 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Russian equipment Maybe this discussion about Russians attack to Finland find more depth with this page http://users.aol.com/threatmstr/ptwserg.html Teemu Niemi ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 06:20:15 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Re: Russian fizzle Wondered when someone was gonna through out some comman sense. NY Times ran an article about two years ago on the R. Military. They had not conducted any exercises lager than battalion strength in the last few years. We thought the Iraqis were easy. A group of 5th graders with Bic pens and spitballs would kick their ass. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:57:29 +-300 From: Jyrki Paajanen Subject: VS: Russian attack If Russian would attack Finland it's all over in a week or two. First few days and our Air Forces would be destroyed. Russians have AWACS that can see every Finnish plane as soon as they take off. After that they send dozen or so MiGs or Sukhois to shoot those down. Quite easy for them. After that they could use attack helicopters to harass movement of our troops and transport helicopters to attack any place they want. So they would not be any Manneheim line or static defense. After Russians have control of all our cities there are much more to do for our infantry than surrender. No partisan fighting like in Vietnam or Afganistan. Some resistance movements like those in France during WWII, but if nobody is coming to help us, it will stop after a few months. After that only some individuals who continue actual fighting. Maybe some passive resistance, but it all depends how the Russians would act after invasion. Jyrki Paajanen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:00:25 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Russian fizzle In a message dated 97-09-12 07:53:42 EDT, you write: > > Wondered when someone was gonna through out some comman sense. NY Times Thank you, Thank you, thank you.............. send any and all money to....................... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:04:43 +0200 From: Niklas Svensson Subject: Re: Russian attack Matt Aistrich wrote: > Niklas Svensson wrote: > > > Hmmm..Your probably right, I'll just stay at Gotland and try to beat > the > > russians with my so good artillery ;-)...Not!!! > > Well, that's what you were waiting for the last time, right? :-) Well, I wasn't even on the planning stage back then BUT, my grandfather (farfar for you who understands swedish) was one of the volunteers who joined you. My grandmother even got to go to Helsinki a numbers of years ago to receive som kind off thanks from the Finnish state. > > > No, actually Sweden was the greatest help Finland had during the war > years > (not counting the ally, Germany), there is no denying that. > > And Finland has paid back by being the buffer state which has > guaranteed > peace and fat times for Sweden. Not fighting was a good choice during > WWII > -- provided you had the choice, of course. And that you weren't the > U.S. > > > How long would it take the Russians to travel from S:t Petersburg > and > > land som ships (RoRo) on the eastern shores of Gotland? 6-12h? > > That threat exists with or without a war against Finland. In fact, > were > Sweden to help Finland in a war, that is exactly the threat the Swedes > woud > be facing. So wouldn't it be better to remain neutral? - -- "a Swede called NixxoN" *************************************************************** * Cyber PObox nixxon@webname.com * 2nd Cyber PObox niklas.svensson@mbox323.swipnet.se * Cyber home http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-18340/ * WiS (webmaster) e-mail warlords@mail.org (gaming group) * ICQ number 235 699 *************************************************************** errare humanum est ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:40:35 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-12 16:52:15 EDT, you write: > > If Russian would attack Finland it's all over in a week or two. First few > days and our Air Forces would be destroyed. Russians have AWACS that can > see every Finnish plane as soon as they take off. Again I reiterate: Russia can't even keep the planes in the air for more than a few hours a year.......... OH WAIT A MINUTE! you guys are saying "If it were the old USSR"! OH ok....... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:20:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Re: Russian attack (fwd) Greetings All: Rob Beck is still unable to post to the list, but he sent me this tidbit for us to chew on. - -C - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:18:39 -0500 From: Robert Beck To: Christopher Callahan Subject: Re: Russian attack At 06:54 PM 9/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >Niklas Svensson wrote: > >> How long would it take the Russians to travel from S:t Petersburg and >> land som ships (RoRo) on the eastern shores of Gotland? 6-12h? >> And how long for me (from mainland Sweden) ~3h Hi Chris, Still unable to post to the Twilight ML, but I might have something interesting to add to this discussion. While I was at GENCON, I attended several of the better War College seminars, hosted by Lt. Comdr. Mcdonaugh (apologies to him if I butchered his name). The seminar was on the Kremlin's plan for invading western Europe, which Poland, Czech Republic, and East Germany have been so gracious as to provide us there parts in the little excercise. One of the topics he discussed was Swedes finding tread tracks underwater off their shoreline with the Baltic. The Swedes and Finns speculated that they might be shallow running underwater tanks, which the Germans had been experimenting with at the end of WWII. It was known that the Soviets got their hands on the program after the war. Perhaps they tried something with it. If I remember right, and lord knows how bad my memory is, I think he said the tracks were found near coastal defense emplacements, power substations, and other strategic targets. Who's to say they weren't probing the Finns also? The incidents in question, I think, were in the '80's. Rob. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:36:39 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > OH WAIT A MINUTE! > > you guys are saying "If it were the old USSR"! > OH ok....... I'm talking about the old USSR with its vast army and putting all of the resources of the Rodina to support this machine from the final confrontation with us Bourgeois Capitalist Yankee Imperialists (tm). So here's the equations for Twilight. A broad front attack of Northern Europe in support of the armored assault on Germany (hence a for the Soviets a two front or maybe even three front European war) where Soviet naval infantry and airborne combined with the heavy blow of motorized infantry divisions would try and take the Kola Peninsula but in doing going through Finland and possibly Sweden. B)aerial assault and blockading the area for by sheer number of subamrines (unlikely given Western strengths) or C)the most efficient a good solid nuking. Unlikely Twilight wild card the Soviet union only attacking Finland and Finland only. In this WW3 situation Finland would be screwed. End of story unless American and British forces can make a breakthrough (again unlikely considering most of NATO's Northern assets would be infantry in nature and light infantry at that); realism should prevail in that thinking light infantry versus heavy forces aren't very good... Current wild card equations- Russia versus Finland over some territory dispute or border skirmish (not too possible since the borders are pushed towards Russia's favor a consequence of the 1939/40 Winter War and the Soviet victory of the Second World War). B) Renewed Russo-Finn conflict because of a change of leadership in Moscow. Or C)Russian anger over Finland swtich from the neutral camp to a more Western one. Current military situation of the Russians are grim and the FAF has new planes. In this scenario Finland would have to get some sort of support from the outside or face a slow war of attrition that would not be favorable and that hasn't happened this century (almost with British and French contemplation but the Nazis invaded Norway) Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:35:16 -0800 From: Azathoth Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack Greetings, I'd just like to add, that it is unlikely that there would have been a conventional war against Finland. The Soviet Union would have taken it over internally, most likely with limited resistance. The KGB had largely infiltrated the Finnish governement in the 80's... this said it is likely that partisan groups were equally distributed throughout the country. In any event, I don't think the Soviets would have had too much trouble taking over thw whole of Scandinavia (excluding Denmark), given that the populations of the Scandinavia countries are so terribly small, and thier armies reflect this. N.A.T.O. troops deployed to Scandinavia would have some/great difficulty with the severe weather. Just my two cents. Regards, Saul Basgen _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:41:10 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Russian attack Niklas Svensson wrote: > Well, I wasn't even on the planning stage back then BUT, my grandfather > (farfar for you who understands swedish) was one of the volunteers who > joined you. My grandmother even got to go to Helsinki a numbers of years > ago to receive som kind off thanks from the Finnish state. Yup, and for that we thank them. My grandfather was in the war and stopped some grenade fragments with his body. After the stay in hospital he went back to teach boys before they went to the front. Actually, more than the Swedes, although they were the ones that helped Finland the most, I feel for the Estonians. They fought for their own country, lost, came to Finland to continue the fight, lost again, and many of them returned to Estonia only to be shipped to Siberia. They really didn't have a home to return to... Niklas: jo, vi talar svenska. Det var min mofa som var i kriget. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:51:22 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack Azathoth wrote: > I'd just like to add, that it is unlikely that there would have > been a conventional war against Finland. The Soviet Union would have taken > it over internally, most likely with limited resistance. The KGB had > largely infiltrated the Finnish governement in the 80's... this said it is Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. Also, thatīs what the Russians figured back in 39. Well, they were a bit surprised that the Finnish "communists" (the Russian machinated puppet government notwithstanding) were in the trenches shooting the partakers of the Russian "victory march" side to side with the Finnish capitalists. We donīt fucking bow to no one! It was a fact then and itīs a fact now. Or: after bowing to other nations for centuries, and having a bloody civil war on who to bow to next, thereīs too much at stake. > In any event, I don't think the Soviets would have had too much > trouble taking over thw whole of Scandinavia (excluding Denmark), given > that the populations of the Scandinavia countries are so terribly small, > and thier armies reflect this. N.A.T.O. troops deployed to Scandinavia > would have some/great difficulty with the severe weather. Just my two cents. Yup. The question is not getting the land, itīs keeping it... > "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, > just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even > if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian > nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who > are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing > when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist > attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our > principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against > imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the > > -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities > December 31, 1922 Yeah, Lenin was sure fucked over by Stalin in a number of ways... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:09:31 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > Again I reiterate: > Russia can't even keep the planes in the air for more than a few hours a > year.......... > > OH WAIT A MINUTE! > > you guys are saying "If it were the old USSR"! > OH ok....... Nope, not really/necessarily. If there is a will, thereīs a way. If Russia really wants to take Finland, where thereīs a will thereīs a way. They absolutely have the manpower and they will also have the other resources to do so. There should be no unclarity about this, the contrast between the who is just too large. Question: how many people does Finland have in the active armed forces? Answer: some 30,000. Question: how many people does Russia have in the active armed forces, even with the breakup and all the people not going in? Answer: a million? Sure, the Finnish number will be multiplied when the Reserves are added. So will the Russian. Once again, I maintain that a war is a great unifying factor, gives someone for the population to blame for their problems and to unite against -- a common purpose as Barnard wrote back in 1938. The accuracy of U.S. military intelligence (oxymoron) has already been shown with operation Desert Storm. The actual strenght of the Iraqis was highly overestimated. Also, I seriously doubt whether the article you read was from reliable sources. Even today, the army is one of the main powers and kingmakers in Russia. At the least, the elite forces will get their share of resources, even though the general morale will be going down. In a related comment, although the successfulness of Russiaīs operations has been very poor in the past few encounters theyīve had, that has mainly been due to their doctrine not fitting the war they are fighting: one of partisans. This also happens to be the strength of the Finns. However, despite the overall lack of success one should not deduce that individual units would be poor: Russia has some of the best military units in the world, staffed with veterans who have seen actual combat. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:19:41 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack Jyrki Paajanen wrote: > If Russian would attack Finland it's all over in a week or two. First few > days and our Air Forces would be destroyed. Russians have AWACS that can > see every Finnish plane as soon as they take off. After that they send > dozen or so MiGs or Sukhois to shoot those down. Quite easy for them. After Agree. No talk about "additonal emergency airfields" etc. will change that. The numbers are totally out of balance. The situation was a lot better 50 years ago. With the equipment of those days on both sides we still might have a fighting chance -- just because we were so good! > that they could use attack helicopters to harass movement of our troops and > transport helicopters to attack any place they want. So they would not be > any Manneheim line or static defense. Absolutely. A static defense is a thing of the past. It is too easy to bypass and is totally out of line with the way wars are fought nowadays. While the Mannerheim line worked for Finland in a sense, the Machinot (sp?) line already didnīt. > After Russians have control of all our cities there are much more to do for > our infantry than surrender. No partisan fighting like in Vietnam or > Afganistan. Some resistance movements like those in France during WWII, but > if nobody is coming to help us, it will stop after a few months. After that > only some individuals who continue actual fighting. Maybe some passive > resistance, but it all depends how the Russians would act after invasion. Sorry Jysky, I disagree. I still believe that the purpose of myself and my men is to buy time for the rest of the Finns to get to the woods. The essence of the Finnish doctrine in many ways is continued active resistance for an extended time. And I still have the belief that many Finns will keep on going until they are dead and will not lay down their weapons -- much like the Estonian "men of the forest" did in the 40s. I believe that the experiences of Jugoslavia in WWII are the closest to what would happen -- thatīs why I like to use the word "partisans" instead of the Finnish "sissi" or "guerillas" (often also translated to "rangers"). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:39:09 -0800 From: Azathoth Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack > >Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. Well, It is difficult for me to argue with you on this point. I do not know very much about Scandanavian politics, but I was informed some time ago by Timo Hamalainen of the University of Helsinki, that the KGB had a good amount of political sway in Finnish politics during the 80's. >Also, that=B4s what the Russians figured back in 39. Well, they were a bit >surprised that the Finnish "communists" (the Russian machinated puppet >government notwithstanding) were in the trenches shooting the partakers of = the >Russian "victory march" side to side with the Finnish capitalists. We don= =B4t >fucking bow to no one! It was a fact then and it=B4s a fact now. I don't mean to insult you're people, or most certainly you're patriotism. My reasoning is that I just don't believe that a country of 5 million (about Finlands' population in the 80's?), could successfully resist the Red Army. The partisan groups that would come up in defiance, as I'm sure there would be many (considering that all (?) Scandinavia countries have a mandatory army service time), wouldn't last very long. > >Yup. The question is not getting the land, it=B4s keeping it... Agreed. > > >Yeah, Lenin was sure fucked over by Stalin in a number of ways... Yes he was, in more ways than I can count on all my fingers and toes..;( _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1996 #55 ************************************