@@reeseasmr2511 In war the definition of winner and loser are often false. We call these wars defensive victories and no one in Finland considers them a loss. We achieved our goals and even the reperations we had to pay massively developed our industry and pushed us towards being the country we are now.
America is the wealthiest country in the world today as a result of global trade. They would not be as wealthy or influential, if an isolationist policy withdrew US military protection of vital trade routes. Something to keep in mind, for anyone dreaming of turning inward.
Some notes and thoughts from a Finn: - Finland's military ethos is still: You may conquer us, eventually, but can you afford the cost? Finland's military is built ONLY for defense, hence the reliance on a huge (per capita) reserve infantry and a large not-so-mobile artillery force. Any offensive capability such as the battle tank fleet and mobile infantry is only big enough for tactical counterattacks that are needed as part of the defense in a vast territory. Very intentionally Russia faces zero offensive threat from Finland's forces. Joining NATO is a move that signals: If we are invaded, hopefully we won't have to fight alone for long. Even in NATO, we can't rely on much actual outside support due to our relatively low strategic significance to the key NATO countries. - The conscription system is cost effective in many ways (you famously pay a drafted soldier the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes and a donut per day), but there's a hidden cost to most males spending 6-12 months in the military, and others in civilian service, plus the continuous refresher exercises that maintain the reserve. Service is time taken away from work and from adding to the GDP. Still, in Finland's particular circumstance of needing to squeeze everything possible out of a small population in a large area, it makes perfect sense. And service builds a mutual will to fight. Rich or poor, you will serve and be part of the nation's fate. - The defensive preparedness goes way beyond the men with guns: We have long maintained a spread out just-in-case stockpile of not only weapons, but other supplies from food to meds, even if it comes down to guerilla warfare after a potential defeat at the front. All top politicians, business leaders, relevant companies, and other players in key positions are included in the total defense plan, and take part in exercises. For example, trusted construction companies may get invited to drill building fortifications on a short time scale, there's redundancy in comms and key infra, there's bomb shelters everywhere, there's a plan to destroy all bridges and make road and rail network unusable by the enemy, etc. - Inherent in this is that the Finns have witnessed what happens to countries under Russia's rule, and unanimously don't wish that fate upon us. Thus the support for self-defense crosses all party lines, which combined with an extremely highly educated and low-corruption society makes us resistant to hybrid warfare like election interference. Even Finland's nearest equivalents to far right parties, the ones that in other parts of Europe have fallen under a degree of Russian influence, are reliant on the patriotic voters, and simply can't lean Russia's way. And what's today called the left wing has zero sympathies to the East, either. Russia of today doesn't fit the ideals of building a free social-democratic society in the least. - Unknown Soldier is not only a great book, but the 2017 movie is fantastic in it's realistic depiction of war and great production values. Easily on par with Band of Brothers in visuals and sound, and in many ways more realistic. You can tell even the directors and actors have served, and know how to run a trench and use cover properly, what fear under fire is, as well as how camaraderie actually displays in often silly ways. - Although Russia does pose by far the biggest threat to Finland, there was a period after the fall of the Soviet Union that we Finns looked at Russia with optimistic eyes. We thought we could become mutually beneficial neighbors with prosperous trade, prosperous tourism, and no threat of war between us. Hence the temporary drop in military spending, and an increase in mutual investment. Unfortunately, Russia chose otherwise, and we have no choice other than to prep for the worst. It's not so much Putin's Russia we fear, but what potentially comes after. No one can predict what exactly happens after his reign comes to an end. Not even the Russians.
Very well put, from a fellow Finn. However, I think you underplay our importance as a part of NATO. The Arctic will be the next battle ground. That's why the US is putting up infra in Finland. The Kola Peninsula and the road & railway leading there are a key strategic vulnerability of Russia. Finland joining the NATO was the worst thing that could happen to them. In case of a war, that spot would tie so much of Russian forces...
And more than shelters there is plan how to use civilian artifacts in military way during crises, like recruiting truck, buildings and cars from the people in a case of war. So not all resources is owned by military in the time of peace. Finland is basically a guerilla stronghold masquerading as civil society. Or has been build so till this day. Some most modern builder seem to have forgot is though...
@@samhartford8677 Yeah, it's true I did underplay NATO's significance. Mere article 5 is huge as a deterrent. While I remain skeptical about NATO allies sending a lot of troops to Finland, unless the conflict scenario were somehow limited to only Finland, what NATO allies could absolutely do is fill in the gaps that a small country's military would have a hard time doing alone: Satellites, intel both on and off the battlefield,, mid- and long range missiles, special forces etc. Finland's military has been built NATO compatible for a long time, so the access and integration to all the hardware, software and command structure is big. Like with the air force, we have a fleet of respectable aircraft, but simply not enough to cover the entire country. Adding at least Norway's and Sweden's to it would be massive. The infra is in place or being built for it, including off-base options to scatter aircraft to avoid them being hit on the air fields, like air strips built on otherwise civilian highways. I'll admit I don't know much about naval warfare, but sure would help to have even the navies of fellow Baltic Sea nations to add to the mine-laying expertise of the Finns. We can surely mine the crap out of the Finnish Gulf and the archipelago, but there's not much we could do about Kaliningrad or the Arctic Sea on our own. While NATO already had some access to Kola peninsula, home of Russia's Arctic fleet, via Norway, Finland's borders do offer a way better pressure point.
@@samhartford8677 Finland the defense budget is 3% of GDP, almost as much as the USA. USA 3.5% GDP, we don't have any polar bears. But maybe 1000 grizzly bears. Finlad loses 26706 more than 200,000 Soviet heroes fell in the winter war.
I think Finland joining NATO is a greater worry for Russia than any other nation joining NATO apart from Ukraine. Finland’s military is excellent with good equipment, leadership and personnel with focus on rapid mobilisation for defence against a Russian incursion; it has a circa 1,000km border with Russia which is the longest of any NATO frontier; every Finn is extremely patriotic and prepared to perform military service; the Finnish military, border guards, civil police and emergency services frequently jointly train for hostile incursions and terror attacks; and by Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Scandinavia is militarily unified for the first time since the Kalmar Union and the Baltic is now a NATO lake.
Thanks for the positive comment. I would even say that we are only country the Europe which has been constantly preparing for CCCP/Russian invasion since 1940s. For us the the end of Cold War meant that we got good equipment for low price while all others we lowering their defence capabilities.
Finland is worry for russia only in their propaganda. Why would anybody attack them? Finland and Sweden as part of NATO makes any russian stupidity here in north and Baltic region out question.
One point, during World War II the Finnish Army did not participate in the Siege of Leningrad. Mannerheim ouright refused to attack the city and threatened to resign if he was ordered to do so. Finnish forces occupied the old border area and stayed there. Also they didn't allow the German's to use Finnish territory to attack the city either. Mannerheim probably understood that the Russians would never forgive or forget an attack like that.
Plus apparently Mannerheim, having served in the Russian Tzar's army, had a picture of him in his house even after the war. And there's still a status of Alexander the Second in Helsinki. We just did not want the Russians in Finland. Obviously there were some radical right lunatics who had other plans, but they did not command the army.
@@LlL-ef5gy That was incidental not intentional. We can speculate on the course of events had the Finnish army not been there. I don't think it would have changed the outcome. The German's would have changed their plans accordingly and the result would have been the same.
@@LlL-ef5gy how do you think Finland could have secured the Karelian Isthmus flank WITHOUT advancing to the pre-1940 border? If Russians want to blame someone for Finnish forces coming so close to Leningrad, they should point their fingers at Peter the Great who BUILT the city there with the full knowledge that the border being so close to the city would be a problem.
The military history of Finland is a lot longer than its independence. For example many of the soldiers in Swedish armies were Finns and they earned fierce reputation when fighting central European countries. The reputation from WW2 is just a continuation from the old times.
The one thing that always bothers me when people talk about Finnish history is that they always focus on the fact that we were a Russian satellite for a 100 years but always leave out that before that we were part of Sweden for 700 years. I think this will make Finland look like were culturally closely related to Russians when were actually much more culturally related to swedes.
This is not true. Finland has been an essential part of Novgorod and Russia and anything before that because our people are closely related - the people in the Moscow region are 67% Finno-Ugrian. Collaboration was based on friendship and same culture - since 1809 Russian tsars developed quickly our industries and economy. Before that, Sweden very violently occupied Finland and kept us as war slaves - and tried to force us to change our native language.
The unknown solider has three films on it, the first having all of the actors actually fight in the war. Both the earliest and the most recent are considered national treasures, are played every year and are very good.
´´All actors actually fight in the war´´The statement is exaggerated,some of them probably ´´served´´in entertaiment groups, more likely microphone than rifle in their hands.Most of them are born 1926 or later.
@@hextatik_sound I agree. Mollberg version is realistic and dark. Amazing actors like in the the roles of Koskela and Lammio. And there's no music at all which makes it feel real.
some corrections... finns were ordered to stop by mannerheim in continuation war even though they could have demonstrably easily broken the railroad to murmansk because finnish leadership foresaw that this would be a key argument in the future to claim that they were not in an actual alliance with germany and that they were only interested in reclaiming lost lands, not destroying the soviet union... all of this they directly said even to their contacts like churchill even at the time... not questionable facts... murmansk line and leningrad could have easily been parts of finnish operations with their resources and success, but finnish leadership simply commanded everyone to stop as they were reaching them. So, a long story short... the finns were not a direct part of the siege of leningrad because of their own choice, even though militarily it would have made quite a lot of sense like the breaking of the murmansk line would have made a lot of sense... finns chose not to do what they could have relatively easily done and its one of the most fundamental parts of the continuation war... also, it needs emphasizing that finland was able to mobilize over 800000 people in continuation war from a smaller than modern population and has therefore demonstrated that the modern reserve numbers are not just numbers... according to evidence they are completely utilizable and are the real numbers of finnish army in war.
Thank you for your video! Few points from a Finn: - Finland has fougt four wars during her independce: Civil war (1918), Winter War, Continuation war and the Lapland war (1945). - The Mannerheim line as a ”bunker network” is a myth created by the Soviet (due a reason that they had severe problems to get through). There were few bunkers there and there but mostly the line was a network of open trenches. - During the Winter War, the war in the Karelian isthmus was WW1 like war of attrition, warfare in the north was mobile and based on encirclement of the enemy and deep engagements. - The share of the Finnish defense budget in GDP differs from NATO's calculation formula. In Finland, e.g. Pensions and the largest equipment purchases are financed from outside the defense budget. - Finland acquired a total of 96 K9 Thunder from South-Korea. - In addition with CV-90, Finland has around 100 BMP-2 MD (modernized version).
10:20 Would be interesting to hear you expand a bit on what you meant. But from a Finnish reservist perspective: We think of the next war as good vs. evil, because Russia always has and always will fight wars of extermination against their enemies. War crimes and terror are part of their doctrine, as seen in Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Chechnya and every war they fought before. This is how they have fought wars for millennia. So it will be a war of survival and the right to exist or Finns once again. In this sense it's the same war as e.g. the Winter war. We have no rosy thoughts about the war being fought at the border or there being any safe areas in modern war. The Finnish military planned for the cold war to be fought with nuclear and chemical weapons in the mix, and this is still being trained. The Finnish military doctrine from 2015 focuses not on holding ground but allowing the frontline to move back and forth and cause as much casualties as possible against the enemy. The size of units all the way down to squad level have increased to accommodate for modern war being more deadly. Ukraine war experiences were being incorporated in training already in 2022. However, as they say, “amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics”: the ministry of defence had already doubled their artillery ammunition production in spring 2022 as an immediate response to the Russian invasion. Why, you ask? To fill the wartime storages. As in, war is coming now - get it while it lasts. By end of 2022, the defmin reported that Finnish wartime stocks were filled and new caches were being built to expand the wartime stocks further. Small arms ammunition production had then increased five-fold. This was in combination with additional orders for AT, AA, missiles, torpedoes, and every other type of munition needed for immediate wartime use. These stocks are filled. Finland is ready to go. They are now working on constructing new artillery ammunition production facilities, i.e. actively preparing for long term war in Europe. Footnote: You left out half the IFV force, 110 BMP-2MD, which are Soviet made but upgraded with western electronics, thermal imaging and thermal camo, etc.
I do not expect any more rocket propelled artillery. One missile cost 10 000 times more than grenade with equal effect. Finland is one large forest. Nature of pointing out targets is more like drawing a large circle on a map rather than pinpoint cordinates. All artillery is connected into net. You can order strike into any location and no matter where those artillery pieces are, they fire so that each of the 6, 12 or 24 grenades land on same are at the same time. Cost of one barrage is way less than fully loaded MLRS and can shoot again into another location immediately. Towed artillery can be deployed under 30minutes with full camo. From planes and drones it look's like tree trunk on a mossy hill. Add several hours and position is fortified with underground shelters, mines, anti-air and anti-tank systems. These are all always included. I've often heard that Finns also lack attack helicopters and aircraft carriers. We have to keep in mind where and how we fight. So my prediction is drones, surveillance equipment and updating current armory.
Rocket artillery aint going away. It was only like a year ago when Finland said that they are upgrading there entire M270 rocket launch systems. No matter the costs, rocket aint going away. Look at Poland, they have ordered like 450+- 480+ launchers, thats more launchers than USA curently have in its own inventory. A rocket can do stuff a grenade cant do u know, its 2 entierly diffrent weapon systems. So both of those are staying in the millitary , U cant just look at costs, and think some "grenade system" is better use than a rocket system, just cause its cheaper to use, they both have there own uses.
@@jimmiekarlsson4458 Yeah, different uses. But if we think about the terrain where the war would be fought, those grenade systems will be most beneficial. Heavily forested area with a ton of water spots that will force the attacker to navigate via specific areas -> most likely a lot of troops on a quite small area. Not much heavy (or any) building infrastructure to provide cover. Those rocket/missile systems do have their place in destroying command posts etc., but what Russia has a lot is troops (and some tanks left still I guess), so ammo quantity will be essential (and the ability shoot/bomb with precision).
Reputation of course depends on what you've heard, but Finland's military history as a regional thing precedes the Viking era. There are fortifications known in Finland from the Stone Age onwards. The oldest sword earthed in Finland dates to 1700-1500 BC. There are around 100 known Bronze Age hillforts in Finland. The list of early Finnish wars and conflicts starts from the 4th century. Hundreds of Viking Era swords have been earthed in Finland. For hundreds of years Finland was the eastern part of Sweden, which meant that the Finns were E.g. part of Gustavus Adolphus' army and military campaigns. The ten peace treaties regarding Finland's eastern border were made from the year 1323 onwards. During the Crimean War, being part of Russian Empire brought the Anglo-French naval force against military and civilian facilities on the coast of Finland. The Suomenlinna Fortress was known as the Gibraltar of the North. Mannerheim himself was a Lieutenant-General in the Russian army when Finland gained its independence. The wars Finland has been involved during its independence include also The Finnish Civil War, The Kinship Wars and The Lapland War. The Kinship Wars includes E.g. The Estonian War of Independence. The Lapland War Finland fought against Germany. Then there are the peace keeping and NATO led operations. Throughout the time Finnish individuals have gained military know-how in various wars and conflicts around the world and often brought that knowledge to Finland. E.g. Aarne "The Terror of Morocco" Juutilainen had served in the French Foreign Legion before he became a national hero in the Battle of Kollaa during the Winter War. Finland was prepared for the war, but the Continuation War started after the Soviet Union had bombed Finnish cities. Also, Finland didn't take part in the Siege of Leningrad-not even after Germany wanted Finland to do that. For the most parts Finnish troops advanced only to the border of the 1920 Treaty of Tartu. This was significant regarding to the post-war Finnish-Soviet relationships, which the Finnish leadership foresee already during the war. During the Cold War Finland did a balancing act between the East and the West. While Finland was viewed as a neutral country, the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 obligated Finland to deter Western or Allied Powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finland. This partly resulted E.g. to Soviet Union selling Finland MIG-21s in 1963. On the other hand, E.g. during the 80s, Finland had a "mutual understanding" with the West and had the same rights and obligations as the CoCom countries.
I think to fully understand where the Finnish army spirit started, you should read about Gustavus Adolphus and his Finnish cavalry. The king understood that these are simple men that cannot do fancy stuff with their horses like the caracole, but instead they had the guts to ride right through the enemy formation. At that time in the 1600's the Finns still killed bears without firearms: the hunter would approach the bear with a 'karhukeihäs', a bear spear, and attract the bear to attack. The attacking bear would jump against the spear, which the hunter tried to point at the heart, the other end of the spear held firmly on the ground. This method required good nerves and close contact with a way stronger opponent that could hit your head off with its paw, given a chance.
What most americans call «reserve forces» in a conscript system is really the main army to be mobilized when needed. The «standing army» is just the education system to make the mobilization army.
Finland still use bicycles. No reson to stop using them. Actually new bike model came like 5 years ago. We dont need "dog teams" in winter because we have skies and every kid have skiing in school and in army. Army have dogs but those are mostly to hunt Russians with military police.
Also there have been testing with electic bikes. If you have to move lets say batallion of infantry 100km fast, bicycles are good for that. If there is enemy ahead of the round, units can just ignore them and go around of them. Also dont need to think about the charge because the mission is now completed and forces are ahead of enemy retreat. Best example of using bicycles forces was in 1918 when there was indepence war in Finland. Main battles were over but Kymenlaakso area need to be clean. There were heavy fighting all direction west, north and east, but bisycle units came move 50km behind enemy lines and capture Inkeroinen railway junksion. 500 man take 3000 prisoners and atleast same number get stuck north of them. Other bicycle units also take porttowns Hamina and Kotka almost no casualties. 5000 prisoners there. Who have tried to flee to Russia.
Was waiting for another video. Very helpful and educational. Can’t wait for a video about Germany. I think videos about countries outside Europe would also be very interesting but completely understand taking care of more familiar countries first. Great content. Keep up the good work!!
If you want a more authentic ww2 atmospheric war movie, watch the 1956 film version of the unknown soldier, that is my favorite war movie... Most of the Actors in that film had really been in that war...
As indicated by the first reply, there is more than one Unknown Soldier (Tuntematon Sotilas) movie. There are *at least* 3 and there is also a (longer) TV Series. At least one of the versions is on Finnish TV once a year (probably Dec 6th - Finnish Independence Day. I (living in Finland since 1989) would be happy if they could think of something else to show as there are several good - more normal - Continuation War films they could show instead. It would make a pleasant change.
The swastika in use in Finnish airforce wasn't strictly Finnish symbology, it was taken from a Swedish noble's coat of arms as he gifted Finland the first planes that would make the Finnish airforce
Coincidentally the Swedish noble later became a leading figure in Sweden's own national socialist movement in the 1930s. His sister also married Hermann Göring in 1923.
@@peigeot9906 and the origin of that swastika was from india , where the right handed swastika (sun) symbolises power and purity whilst the mirror night and misery, Nazis also tilted theirs... little things matter.
Few equipment related points that play a big role into the "cost effectiveness" that was one of the big topics of the video: Finland's 41 MLRS used to have just the "old stuff" munitions on them, that is, cluster munitions, but it became clear that they left way too many undetonated live munitions into the terrain. Finland actually put a lot of research into improving them so they'd detonate more securely (my wife worked heavily on that subject for a time), especially after Iraq war proved them to be problematic for civilian population after the conflict itself ended. But there was never good answer, so the only cluster munitions Finland ever had were mines that were able to self detonate later. In 2015 the vehicles got updated with Universal Fire Control System, along with imports of GMLRS munitions from the U.S. that made them modern, longer range, and most importantly guided. (You could call them missiles but U.S. and Finland still call them "rockets"). Latest update is from 2022, with ER (extended range) GLMRS munitions modernizing them further. It's the same thing with most military equipment in Finland. While Finland and Sweden do have a new AR/DMR/SR family coming from Sako soon(tm) it seems, you can take the "service rifle", RK-62 as an example. It came out in 1962, but the latest step in that rifle's life is the "modification 3" variant of it that allows mounted optics, silencers and whatnot, making it a modern combatant's tool. Simply because it's much cheaper than getting something all new for a force (including projected volunteers and such) of 1.1 million strong. Since you can't really do anything without something that spits lead down range, I'm quite sure RK-62 won't be fully retired any time soon, no matter how fast they produce the new family of weapons. Not until the reservists who trained with it and mastered it get old. As for the "Finnish readiness" and volunteering spirit, I think my little family is a good example. While women can volunteer to do military service these days, neither me or my wife did, for various reasons (my health being one the big ones). That doesn't mean we can't do anything if there's an invasion. I'm confident in my skill with a Sako TRG M10, and my wife uses an assault rifle and a pistol in a sport that is aimed at reservists to maintain their skills, and also anyone else wanting to improve their weapon handling and learn "real life" combat scenarios, called SRA-shooting. We also know outdoors life style, orienteering (which we learn at school) and such well enough, traveling and living in Finnish nature for a time is no problem. If the conflict is prolonged and the need for everyone who can to pick up arms arises, we can and will do it. Obviously at first we'd go work in a factory to replace men and women that are now fighting, to produce food products or whatever - That's just as important. Fleeing the country however is absolutely out of the question, we'd rather die and take as many invaders with us as possible. Make sure the price is indeed high.
We Finns take our defence forces very seriously. 86% of the population was prepared to defend Finland in case of war. That was before the Ukrainian war starter, and would be even higher today. Basically every man feel pride in joining the military, and even Kimi Räikkönen the former F1 champion had to join the military as most of all famous Finnish men have done. 🇫🇮💪🙏🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦💪🇫🇮🙏
I hit the like button and added this comment for the algorithm. Finland was not a part of the siege of Leningrad because Mannerheim understood that when the war was over, Russia would still be Finland's neighbour. Finland did not attack or cut off vital supplies to Leningrad. Additionally, Mannerheim loved St. Petersburg because he had lived there while serving for the Czar's army. Finland was not a formal ally of Germany because they had not signed into the Tripartite Act. Instead they were brothers-in-arm while fighting a common enemy, the Soviets. This distinction had consequences for Finland after the wars were over. Cheers
So you think we should keep honoring a swedish nazi with a swastika whose sister married Hermann Göring just because they donated a couple of airplanes?
The Finnish Army used to be full of Ashkenazi (Khazar-Jews) officers deported from Russia by tsars (as e.g. Mannerheim). They had cool relations with Hitler's officers but allowed Germans to establish concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers to Karelia and even in Finland. Swastika from Finnish air force was not a problem.
@@mikkopunkari1676 "allowed Germans to establish concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers to Karelia and even in Finland" -- What on earth are you talking about? Where exactly were those "German concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers" located, in Karelia / Finland? Who commanded them and how many prisoners did they keep? How did they end up at the final stages of the war? How come history knows nothing about these alleged "German concentration camps in Finland"? Only Putinists keep telling lies of the internment camps that were the normal practice in WW2 all over the world with enemy civilians who were considered as a security risk. It appears you are telling shameful lies to promote Putin's propaganda.
Keep up the great work of showing the less known NATO armies (Italy, Finland). Now that you mentioned it in your video do you have a plan for doing Turkey?
I saw someone commenting (a year ago or something) about Fibland joining NATO something along the lines of "how big troops do you think allies would send and it would take time blah blah blah". The biggest support we would need is supplies. Ammo, weapons, healthcare stuff, food etc. And I think our NATO allies know that and this is one reason why Finland is so warmly welcomed.
Swartika comes from a Swedish count whose family in the coat of arms is it. It donated a couple of planes to Finland in 1917 and also a couple of planes during the winter war.
The Unknown Soldier is one the best WW2 books. The title means that, WW2 soldiers were glorified after the war and this book searched to display them in a light, that those guys were normal persons too.
Unfortunately, the English translation (at least the one that was available in the 1970's) is lousy, and it even includes altered parts of the original plot of the novel. The soldier characters have become classics among Finnish readers, and many of its phrases have become famous quotes, but I doubt whether their specific and localized subcultural contexts will be understood by foreign readers. The book is fiction, but unfortunately some people take it even as history writing.
The original Unknown Soldier movie (black and white movie) is playing in Finnish television channels every independence Day. Lately the new version has been pkayed too.
@@michaelshurkin613 It is in Netflix as 5 part mini series, a bit longer than movie theater version. However it listed me only nordic subtitles, not english, so I'm not sure how worldwide the availability is.
Thanks for this very good video. Did not know about the Molotov cocktail origin.. Also very interesting about the bike units. May it will difficult for a soldier to carry modern anti tank weapon on it.
These bikes are used for marches basically, much faster and more comfortable. Obviously you would transport any heavy stuff with trucks. Bikes are not meant for front lines, but if you need to move troops behind your own lines by marching, it's very cheap and efficient way to do so.
Finland wasn't really a part of the siege of Leningrad. Finns basically stood down where the old border went (except for defensive considerations), which just happens to be fairly close. There were calls from the Germans to close the siege.
@@hartyewh1Yes an no. If blocking something by standing at your own border is a siege, it is like saying Germany is having a siege of Denmark right now, blocking it from entering further into Germany. Of course there was war, but the actual siege was carried out by only German troops that were standing between Leningrad and the rest of the USSR.
@@sampohonkala4195 Have I been tricked by some propaganda or something. Even Wikipedia says that we blocked Leningrad from the north, but others claim we didn't prevent any movement of supplies etc. What's a solid source on this?
@@hartyewh1 Most likely explanation - Finland did try to take part in siege of Leningrad but did a crappy job that USSR supplies got through anyway. & Finland got decent deniability of not being Nazi allies, even though many politicians of Finland in early 1940's were.
@@hartyewh1Finland didnt prevent supplies from flowing in, which was a thing that pissed off Hitler, even though Finland did have the means to do it. IIRC, there was some strikes/harassing but nothing major to actually try to cut the route off. Some of it is hypothetical, as we don't know what went in his mind, but some believed that Mannerheim was fairly sure the Germans were going to lose in the end (and possible emotional ties to the city as well) and thought that if Finland were to take part in the siege actively, and especially if the city were to fall, any chance of negotiating anything but a total surrender later on would go straight out of the window.
Our people is willing to defend the country but not to fight for USA-NATO or any other foreign country. Probably the army could find a hundred mercenaries to fight abroad if art. 5 is applied.
How could you, as a military analyst, not know anything about Finland's military history? It is awesome! Hakkaa Päälle! Finland is just one of those countries you do not want to invade. It is where Muscowites freeze to death. And Finland is an independent country still, because they know what it takes to be a free country; a strong military. I wish the rest of us Scandies- or Europe, would imitate their mobilisation system. And no, I did not watch the video, I was just shocked how you could not know. I am sorry, there are surely many basic things I do not know.
At 4:16 No, Stalin could not go any further. The Red Army was beaten in the Tali - Ihantala battles and could not get any further. They simply ran out of time as they needed all their troops for the race for Berlin, so after losing in Ihantala and Ilomantsi they would have needed new troops to continue - which they did not have, as the only troops were marching towards Berlin. The only way the USSR could have conquered Finland was beating Germany first and then come back for Finland for a new, separate war. To avoid that Finland accepted the peace terms although at the moment it was not losing. Finland had destroyed the Red Army. My father-in-law was fighting at Ihantala and after those battles the discussion among men was if Finland should try to take Viborg back, as there were only weak Soviet troops defending it. That is when the peace came.
Your comments on bicycles is interesting. The British Commandos in WW2 were issued with bicycles for DDay and promptly discarded them. The Japanese used bicycles when invading Malaya. The Swiss had bicycle troops but disbanded them in 2003.
Your first two examples show exactly what they should not be used for. Offensive operations. The Swiss used them correctly, as did others like the Finns and Swedes. As a faster and more comfortable alternative to marching - far from the fight.
Bikes are for fast marches on roads to move troops. Extremely effective for that purpose. And especially in Finland, our Russian border is mostly very deep forest, but it has been prepared for defense so there's roads inside those woods. Ultimately, if you have roads, bikes are very useful.
@@EggwardEgghands the Jäger Brigade of the Finnish Army used bicycles to keep up with the tanks and assault guns of the Armoured Brigade during offensive operations, the movie Tali-Ihantala 1944 shows a good example of this.
Great video and analysis! I think one thing that could be mentioned is the concept of Total Defence. That means, in addition to the Defence Forces, the nation is brought into the defence planning. For example regarding companies designated "strategically important" for the defence of the country. Key people from those companies are regularly invited by the FDF to wargame how their companies would act in a time of crisis. I happen to work in one and the higher bosses attend those kinds of events regularly. Also I have a couple of colleagues that are designated as "important for the war effort" and cannot be called into service. Some comments: 3:40 I would say that Finland got as far as the old border between Finland and the Soviet Union 😉 You can see the old border on the map at 5:30 and that is pretty much as far as the Finnish Army advanced in the Isthmus in the continuation war. The old border was very, very close to Leningrad. The frontline was pretty much a straight line from about the southern starting point of the old border to the northern end point. 4:20 Yes, Stalin saw Berlin as a more better price than to try to take Finland. Because when peace came, Finland had managed to stop the Soviet summer offensive, started to even push back in some parts of the front and rest of the forces were beginning to regroup into restarting the offensive. So Stalin would have needed to commit much more troops and that would have meant he would´ve lost Berlin. 5:48 "The Finnish couldn´t afford the Maginot Line" but after the Winter War you get the "hold my beer" moment. Check out the Salpaline that was built during the Interim peace. The biggest construction effort in the history of Finland. 12::57, the 280 000 war-time strength and 870 000 reserves are the numbers that are given officially by the FDF. I would post a link but RUclips does not like links. 14:04 A good source for how much Finland has equipment is the Vienna 2011 Document of Annual Exchange of Military Information. 16:34 When Russia started it´s full invasion of UKraine in 2022, I remember reading an interview of an higher up in the FDF. He said that Russia is attacking Ukraine in way against which Finland has been training and preparing for all these decades. 20:46 Finland has decided to purchase the David’s Sling system. 22:00 And mines, lots of mines. Pretty new ones that are a little bit nasty pieces. Finland is getting also 4 new frigates that want to be called corvettes 😆 Finland was also smart during the peacefull period after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Finland bought from many countries equipment that were modern but almost unused. For example, Finland bought almost all Leopards (they kept like 16) and all their MLRS´s of the Netherlands Armed Forces 😆
If you are interested, there is a video by the FDF about a potential (pre-NATO) scenario how Finland would react if it comes under attack. The video is called Taistelukenttä 2020 or Battlefield 2020 and has english subtitles (if you remember to enable those). How the scenario advances has scary similitaries on how Russia escalated the war in 2022.
You also omit what might be the most important result of 🇫🇮 and 🇸🇪 NATO membership: acces to airfields to deny the Baltic to the Russian Navy and support the Baltics if Russia invades.
Ukraine has shown that massive amounts of infantry and conventional artillery is still where it's at. All the expensive high tech stuff is nice but when there's a 100,000 dudes rolling across the fields in your direction you need power, not precision. Both sides there are still using Soviet gear and it works just fine for the type of warfare that they're fighting. Then there's the new layers that have been introduced on top of it like drone warfare. The Finnish Defense Forces have been looking into that and is seeking an option that'll work for us. They're also looking into getting nightvision gear for the entire conscripted reserve so that no opposition can terrorize us with night drones. Oh, and we still have those bicycles. I did my conscription in a motorized brigade so we didn't use them much but we still had them. This was like 11 years ago.
Totally agree about the old tech. And I recently read that conscripts still do some bicycle training. Meaning, the bikes are all in storage, just in case.
@@michaelshurkin613 The most important thing is bicycles don't need gasoline. When times get rough it is very much possible that mechanized infantry stays jammed but with bicycles infantry can move relative fast. I served in coastal jaegers and even we had those in storage but actually used only in part of "baret march".
when it comes to most of our (i am Finnish) old soviet armored vehicles they mostly are modified to purpose so they might be old platforms but modified to purposes like fire command vehicles etc.
For anyone interested about the specifics of the naming of Molotov cocktail, it was indeed named after the Foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. During the war there was heavy bombing on civilian targets among military ones by the Soviet air force but Molotov claimed on radio broadcasts that there were no bombings and that the Soviet Air Force was merely dropping food supplies to the starving Finns. Finns started to call these bombs "Molotov's breadbaskets" and devised a cocktail as a drink to go with the food.
Finland were under russia rule (not part of russia) but before that finland were under sweden rule like 600 years. So we have never been part of russia. And never will.
Corrections: - Independent Finland has gone throuh 4 wars, not 2; Civil War, Winter War, Continuation War and Lapland War, but understandably only 2 of those are really relevant to the subject matter. - Fighting like lions was more appropriate considering the lion is a very common animal in Finnish iconography. A regular brown bear would be an appropriate second option, albeit the bear is more often associated with the Russians. Polar bears has no significance, or presence in Finland whatsoever. - The Finnish Air Force swastika is actually closely related to Nazism as it was the personal symbol of a Swedish noble Eric von Rosen who was the leader of the Swedish Nazi Party and brother-in-law of Hermann Goering himself. So yes, while it was adopted in Finnish Airforces before the German Nazi party did, the Air Forces swastika is still objectively directly related to nazism, which is why it was removed from use. Only still used by the Air Force Academy anymore.
If war broke out FDF would aquire lots of vehicles from civilians. Trucks, ATVs, off road vehicles, tractors etc. With so big reserve army there would be no point of having huge stock of army vehicles during peace time. Reserve army - reserve transportation.
As nuclear powers main priority of UK and France should be a dominant navy like the good old times. Combined with a strong airforce but also a rapidly employable mechanized force with drone capability that can reinforce the frontlines. For defence a good amount of artillery and anti air systems.
Only some 100+ years of russian regime ('The Grand Duchy of Finland"). Unfortunately, the constant warfare weakened the Kingdom of Sweden, they lost yet again another war in 1808 and 1/3 of the Kingdom since 800+ years (Finland) got lost to russians. Yet still, Finland has only two official languages, Finnish and Swedish (BTW, we do speak English too, inspite of the horrible attack of British Navy to Aland Islands in 1850's caused by some Russian aggression against....)😎😂
"The US survived against the greatest Superpower of the time (Britain) in the war of 1812" sorry Michael, as much as I love your channel and your videos (I’m a fan!), Britain was not the greatest superpower of the time and it’s never been a superpower, that distinction goes to Napoleon’s France (call a spade a spade). Britain was not a land power at the time (it has never been a land power) and could not defeat any of the major powers of the time (Prussia, Russia, Austrian Empire) on land without help, they themselves barely survived against Napoleon’s (inept) marshals in Spain and although they celebrate Waterloo, they would have most certainly lost that battle to an army of conscripts had the Germans not intervened in time. I think what you could say about the British is that they had a capable Navy (not anymore, they’re bankrupt), they invested allot into its equipment, the development of its warships, training and controlled vast land masses outside Europe rich in resources that they never quiet truly leveraged. Not a good comparison. The 1939 Winter War (USSR vs Finland: keep in mind the USSR was a formation of 15 Republics including Ukraine - the USSR was a Superpower) showed the world, and in particular Hitler, that Stalin had done a thorough job of purging the Red Army and the consequences of that decision, but even Stalin learnt from this mistake and his army was able to recover just in time to save him and the USSR. Love you Michael :)!
Finland has already acquired Israel’s David’s Sling long-range air defense system, which should be up and running pretty soon. After major investments in the air force (F-35s) and navy (new corvettes), the next big focus is on the land forces. Upgrades, mid-life updates, and some new capabilities are all in the works.
but we cannot fight 21st war with 20nd equipment. we cannot merely fight with the memory of winter war. we must upgrade ourselves as much as Poland. to start not only majorly producing, but also researching. half of our artillery and everything is cold war. we can easily take 10milllion people Israel as our example of home-grown "military-industrial complex"(government subsidized defense industry) for our own needs.
Actually there isn't much equipment from 1980's or older in Finnish army. Sure there is some but not all stuff get old fashioned. Like mortars, assault rifles and some vehicles. Also some stuff is upgraded. But such things like mtb:s, missiles etc are modern. And you can't compare with Israel because they have a huge sponsor. You can look the stats and notice that basicly USA pays the whole military budget of Israel. But I agree that we could have even more military industry. Now we have good ammo production, apc production, artillery/mortar stuff production, and some other things like that next level "s-mine" developing. Still I think we should have domestic AA production in different levels. I'm not sure about developing long distance AA missiles but we should invest a lot to drones and anti-drone production, jammers and traditional AA guns against drones.
A total of 96 K9 SPGs are in various stages of delivery (from already in use to still on order). Meanwhile the 1970s 122 PSH 74 (originally 2S1 Gvozdika), bought used in the 90s like a lot of other stuff, will be phased out/replaced by the K9s and some have in fact been spotted in Ukraine already. Finland is also in the process procuring new Sisu GTP MRAPs to replace it's fleet RG-32 Scouts. The D-30 is in a somewhat strange position in that a medium howitzer is still needed on the battefield today, but there really isn't all that much around in that segment. The British L119 (M119 in the US) is probably a bit better (the range is a bit better and the ammunition weighs less) but is it enough better to buy several hundred of them? Especially since it's not being manufactured anymore? Probably not..
Finland was only country in Europe which took part in WW2 and was never annexed (Of course UK didnt either because its an island) and wasnt pile of rubble either. Its quite well done if you think that we fought two wars against Soviet Union and one against Germany.
I don't think the Soviet stuff, like MT-LB and BMP-2 are going to disappear any time soon. MT-LB was basically bought in large numbers for dirt cheap when the Cold War ended and the unified Germany needed to get rid of the large East German stock of Eastern Bloc stuff. BMP-2 were also affordable enough and have been heavily modernised by Finland. Though that being said, Ukraine has shown they are steel coffins for the crew. CV90 are ten times better, but they are also expensive. With the F-35, new frigates, more K9 units, and long range AA systems, I reckon the defence forces need to carefully think where to put the remaining money. It will probably look more attractive to keep the old Soviet iron around.
There's a good RUclips presentation of the history of Jews in Finland by John B. Simon: Strangers in a Stranger Land: Finland's Jewish Soldiers in WWII.
@@michaelshurkin613 that isnt a real war let be honest. Batallion of the youngest men watch division of Germans skiing down the mountains and drinking. Finns would have no change to attack them so army didnt even give any units to try. More important is Finnish independence war in 1918.
@@michaelshurkin613 It is also worth noting that warfare is changing - Ukraine is showing that (conventional arms) "mass" is being counterweighted by technology - Drones, Individual portable Anti -Armour / anti Air / drone remote mine drops & precision missiles (HIMARS et al) . All of those are "supply support" as opposed to needing other countries boots & equipment on the ground. I know that Artillery is still the biggest killer on the battlefield : but a lot of the the tactical gains are being propagated by this technology. If your allies are supported in this manner - They punch (or defend) considerably harder than their conventional 'mass' suggests.
280 000 would be the size of the mobilized finnish military. 870 000 is the pool of reservists the military would be formed from. These 870k includes people that have been trained and are not too old, so they could be potentially called up. They are the pool that can also be called up to fill the ranks and reinforce the military. The way that 280k might go up, would be by forming new units from that pool of reservists, after receiving aid from the allies, but that kind of thing is pure speculation. 280 000 is already plenty big for rest of the country to support, and already has many shortages of equipment that would need to be filled, way before calling in more troops. So bottom line; the size of the mobilized military is not something between 100 000 and 900 000, but 280 000.
That is not true. At the peak of the Continuation War Finland had 500 000 troops at arms. The population was around 4 million and the older generations had never received military training that had only started in 1919 . We definitely can have way more than 280 000 on the front now If needed.
Meillä on ensilinjan reservi 280,000. Mutta meidän reservin koko on yli 900,000 ja jokaiselle on rynnäkkökivääri. Meillä on yli 1500 yli 120mm tykistöasetta.
We have a first line reserve of 280,000. But our reserve size is over 900,000 and everyone has an assault rifle. We have more than 1500 artillery guns over 120mm.
finland have use lot´s of money air force ( f-35 ) and marines (new ships and boats ) in last years. now is infantry time to say,what they need and get :)
24:00 i wonder if the increasing use of electric bikes in ukraine and within NATO Special Operations are an example of how the utility of bikes are being seen.
@@michaelshurkin613 Of course, there was the front line across the Karelian Isthmus (between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga). Front lines were naturally nowhere in WW2 meant to be crossed, thus sealing off all traffic, but seldom called a "siege" - and looking at the map: where on earth would the Soviets have wanted to travel along the Karelian Isthmus, while it was all re-taken and controlled by Finns, as well as the whole northern side of Ladoga? But there were specific orders from the Supreme HQ for the Finnish troops to halt their advance where the Soviets had built their permanent line of fortifications to the north-west from Leningrad. The Finnish Air Force was restricted not to extend its operations farther than 10 km ahead of the frontline, and never bombed the city. At the time, the Finnish artillery pieces had no more than 17.5 kilometers as their maximum range, which could not nearly reach the built area of Leningrad at all. Finns were well aware of the wintertime ice road across Lake Ladoga that kept up logistics to Leningrad. Finnish combat engineers had the skills of drilling ice and planting explosives, to be simultaneously exploded to form huge holes in the middle - in the Winter War, plenty of Soviet tanks were sunk in lakes using this method. Any convoys of trucks to and from Leningrad could also have been sent to the bottom of Ladoga the same way, but there were standing orders to refrain from it. Soviets sent some 120,000 additional soldiers to reinforce the military defense of the starving city during 1942, instead of a corresponding tonnage of food. But Finns did not wish to touch Leningrad even with a long stick, contrary to the repeated requests of Germans. There was severe shortage of food also in Finland in the winter of 1941-42, so the collapse of Leningrad with roughly the same population as all of Finland would have caused a huge humanitarian catastrophe - Finland had simply no means of feeding extra millions. The Finnish Supreme Commander, Marshal Mannerheim, politely but firmly declined all German repeated requests of joining their attack against the city, leaving it all to the Germans to deal with it, as destroying Leningrad was not a goal of war for Finland. The Soviets also noticed this, and could then concentrate their troops against the Germans on the southern side of the city.
Right, I guess Finlandis a bit of a difficult subject through history, unless you read up a bit on history, & look a bit further then the last 100 years.. What's abit confusing is that present day Finland is derived from the Grand Duchy of Finland, which is territory split away from Sweden in 1809, to be ruled as a sort of independent realm under the Russian Tzar, while keeping it's own laws, & mostly having it's own governing bodies... Ie, it was eastern Sweden, under a new/different monarch. Before that, it was considered part of the core of Sweden, so you will have to look at Swedish military history to find Finlands military history before that, which will include all those wars wars with Russia/Muscovy/Novgorod, Denmark, Poland etc. The Swedish militay traditions is considered to be the orgin of what becomes the Preussian tradition btw. Btw, after the Cold War, the military connections between Finland & Sweden have been growing considerably, & now with both being part of NATO, those relations seems to be evolving further eaven more rapidly.. From a Russian/Muscovite perspective, this must ofcourse seem a bit like a nightmare; the old arch enemy, Sweden, is reborn, & with the rapid development of relations both inbetween the Nordic countries, & the Nordics & the Baltics (NB8), in a massively boosted version.. like the wounded Swedish lion comes back transformed into a Griffin.. Hundreds of years of efforts from the Russian/Muscovite side waisted.. & btw, if you look at the Finnish Coat of Arms, the Finnish lion is standing on a Russian/Muscovite Saber.. The Finns know their Muscovite negighbours, not just from the last 100 years of conflict.. the conflict has more like a milennia of background..🧐 in
There is a degree of commonality of culture and civic as well as military tradition because of long mutual medieval history with Sweden, but Finland is not just an accident of history split off from Sweden one day and just given autonomy by Russia, but a nation state with its own identity, its own ancient language unrelated to Swedish or Russian. To us Finns saying that Finland is fundamentally just a former part of Sweden sounds like what I imagine it would sound to Hungarians if someone suggested they are just austrians with confused identity. The majority group of Finland is neither Swedish nor Russian, but Finnish.
France and the UK wanted to send troops to Finland via Sweden from Norway, but the Swedish government declined passage. The Baltic route via sea was blocked by Germany.
1) given 110.000 lakes, endless swamps and forests, tanks and APC can only operate in very limited areas 2) the Finnish towed artillery and mortar arsenal is larger than US. Less rockets and SPAs. Again, counter battery fire is hard as there are endless places to hide guns 3) Finland would be vastly harder to conquer than Ukraine, even alone 4) Finnish navy is emphasizing mine laying and missile boats
Dogs bark. That's a total no no for stealth. Skis are for the silent assassins. Those dog sled teams are really just for show or recon of your own areas. Even with that, barking is a problem.
Finnish military fits the terrain. Lot's of swamps, rivers, ponds and lakes, tons of forests, some rocks and cliffs. It's mostly suboptiomal terrain for heavy tank warfare. Russian side of the border is even worse and there's only a handful of supply corridors. There's hills, not mountains, on the eastern border. Hence the large amount of mortars which can hide behind hills and shoot using steep angle. Towed artillery teams are trained to be agile and mobile, shoot and scoot type, so those D-30s are a bit like extended range low angle mortars.
And what NATO needs to provide for Eastern European countries is aerial and naval support, missiles and rocket artillery, that can be moved to theatre instantly (is there) but also supply, training of new forces (from own population), equipment manufacturing and reserves for longer warfare (isn't adequate). While it makes no sense to keep stockpiles that just rust away the production capability and production supply chains must be ready. This also concerns civilian infrastructure because of Russian terror tactics.
the umpteeth time this topic is discussed by foreigners that gave a shit about us before the ukraine war. Please continue giving a shit. I want my peace a quiet back ;)
Please do a piece on the New Zealand defense force, which you will find is Pathetic...... but what people want to know is what would be a could defense policy strategy for this island nation.
I say this because many NATO coutry's counts 'other paymens/costs' on them military budjet. Example finnish border guard system are not part of them military budjet, its have totaly own budjet, it belongs ministry of the interior below. Still border guards have atleast basic finnish army backround or more. And either finnish icebreakers budjet does not belong same budjet with the army budjet, icebreakers have own budjet. Etc...
Enemy is allways coming in east. And paris peace treaty have limit navy. And now is coming new corvetts. And same treaty have limits fighters amout and banned bombers.
A comment on the Swastika, while it is cultural the reason the Finnish Air Force used them is because they were donated by Eric Von Rosen - a Swedish count. Von Rosen was an ardent national socialist and Goering’s brother in law.
There's the Swedish count who was the source of the 1918 blue swastika of the Finnish Air Force and who later became a nazi. And then there's the Finnish painter Akseli Gallen-Kallela who was an important figure in the creation of Finnish national identity. The frame of Gallen-Kallela's 1889 Aino Triptych is filled with swastikas. In 1918 he designed the Order of the Cross of Liberty's insignia with a "fylfot" swastika. That's the one on the flag of the President of Finland.
6:11 Iron Cross. Medal’s are given when foreign Power’s meet.. even today😂. Ww1 Mannerheim fought against German’s and got from bravery St George Yes that Putin ❤ black /orange cloth medal😂 . Sept 1944- all German Medal’s where not used
What enabled the Finns to end the winter war on favorable was that they didn't receive (meaningful) western help. Therefore, they weren't dependend on others to fight on. The Finnish military and overall defence concept is pretty much the same Switzerland had up into the 1990s. It's not a cheap, but a cost-efficient and highly effective defence system.
Rubbish. Finland didnt end the war favourable apart from not getting conquered. The war material was spent, manpower exhausted. They just bluffed Russians about what they had left and Stalin was getting nervous about Hitler and wanted to end the war. Being alone in a war is not a positive trait. Dont fool yourself.
I'm still curious how soldiers with 6 months training would perform in combat. I think their platoon leaders and platoon squad and platoon sergeants only have 11 months training? I remember reading the Swedish (who had a similar militia model during the cold war) considered the Finnish training times insufficient.
It is true that finnish troops rely on specialization. The signal troops are only good at comms, engineer at counter mobility and mobility etc. The training is highly dense due to small overall time to train, loping around has been cut to bare minimum.
also you have to remember that most of the enemy forces are not any better either, you can just look at Ukraine conflict as see what are the training levels there so i think Finnish system is totally fine for reserve troops.
imagine a military thats sole purpose is to protect your own country. What a novel concept
@@reeseasmr2511 In war the definition of winner and loser are often false. We call these wars defensive victories and no one in Finland considers them a loss. We achieved our goals and even the reperations we had to pay massively developed our industry and pushed us towards being the country we are now.
@@hartyewh1 well, round 2 wad a loss for sure, but calling the winter war a loss is extremely misleading.
America is the wealthiest country in the world today as a result of global trade. They would not be as wealthy or influential, if an isolationist policy withdrew US military protection of vital trade routes. Something to keep in mind, for anyone dreaming of turning inward.
@@B1gLupu Misleading, but not completely untrue. We DID lose, on paper. In our hearts we didn't, as we kept our independence.
@@Ruija27Also US funds the groups they fight against. US is wealthy, because it is corrupt and wages useless wars for supranational corporations.
Some notes and thoughts from a Finn:
- Finland's military ethos is still: You may conquer us, eventually, but can you afford the cost? Finland's military is built ONLY for defense, hence the reliance on a huge (per capita) reserve infantry and a large not-so-mobile artillery force. Any offensive capability such as the battle tank fleet and mobile infantry is only big enough for tactical counterattacks that are needed as part of the defense in a vast territory. Very intentionally Russia faces zero offensive threat from Finland's forces. Joining NATO is a move that signals: If we are invaded, hopefully we won't have to fight alone for long. Even in NATO, we can't rely on much actual outside support due to our relatively low strategic significance to the key NATO countries.
- The conscription system is cost effective in many ways (you famously pay a drafted soldier the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes and a donut per day), but there's a hidden cost to most males spending 6-12 months in the military, and others in civilian service, plus the continuous refresher exercises that maintain the reserve. Service is time taken away from work and from adding to the GDP. Still, in Finland's particular circumstance of needing to squeeze everything possible out of a small population in a large area, it makes perfect sense. And service builds a mutual will to fight. Rich or poor, you will serve and be part of the nation's fate.
- The defensive preparedness goes way beyond the men with guns: We have long maintained a spread out just-in-case stockpile of not only weapons, but other supplies from food to meds, even if it comes down to guerilla warfare after a potential defeat at the front. All top politicians, business leaders, relevant companies, and other players in key positions are included in the total defense plan, and take part in exercises. For example, trusted construction companies may get invited to drill building fortifications on a short time scale, there's redundancy in comms and key infra, there's bomb shelters everywhere, there's a plan to destroy all bridges and make road and rail network unusable by the enemy, etc.
- Inherent in this is that the Finns have witnessed what happens to countries under Russia's rule, and unanimously don't wish that fate upon us. Thus the support for self-defense crosses all party lines, which combined with an extremely highly educated and low-corruption society makes us resistant to hybrid warfare like election interference. Even Finland's nearest equivalents to far right parties, the ones that in other parts of Europe have fallen under a degree of Russian influence, are reliant on the patriotic voters, and simply can't lean Russia's way. And what's today called the left wing has zero sympathies to the East, either. Russia of today doesn't fit the ideals of building a free social-democratic society in the least.
- Unknown Soldier is not only a great book, but the 2017 movie is fantastic in it's realistic depiction of war and great production values. Easily on par with Band of Brothers in visuals and sound, and in many ways more realistic. You can tell even the directors and actors have served, and know how to run a trench and use cover properly, what fear under fire is, as well as how camaraderie actually displays in often silly ways.
- Although Russia does pose by far the biggest threat to Finland, there was a period after the fall of the Soviet Union that we Finns looked at Russia with optimistic eyes. We thought we could become mutually beneficial neighbors with prosperous trade, prosperous tourism, and no threat of war between us. Hence the temporary drop in military spending, and an increase in mutual investment. Unfortunately, Russia chose otherwise, and we have no choice other than to prep for the worst. It's not so much Putin's Russia we fear, but what potentially comes after. No one can predict what exactly happens after his reign comes to an end. Not even the Russians.
Very well put, from a fellow Finn. However, I think you underplay our importance as a part of NATO. The Arctic will be the next battle ground. That's why the US is putting up infra in Finland. The Kola Peninsula and the road & railway leading there are a key strategic vulnerability of Russia. Finland joining the NATO was the worst thing that could happen to them. In case of a war, that spot would tie so much of Russian forces...
And more than shelters there is plan how to use civilian artifacts in military way during crises, like recruiting truck, buildings and cars from the people in a case of war. So not all resources is owned by military in the time of peace. Finland is basically a guerilla stronghold masquerading as civil society. Or has been build so till this day. Some most modern builder seem to have forgot is though...
@@samhartford8677 Yeah, it's true I did underplay NATO's significance. Mere article 5 is huge as a deterrent.
While I remain skeptical about NATO allies sending a lot of troops to Finland, unless the conflict scenario were somehow limited to only Finland, what NATO allies could absolutely do is fill in the gaps that a small country's military would have a hard time doing alone: Satellites, intel both on and off the battlefield,, mid- and long range missiles, special forces etc. Finland's military has been built NATO compatible for a long time, so the access and integration to all the hardware, software and command structure is big.
Like with the air force, we have a fleet of respectable aircraft, but simply not enough to cover the entire country. Adding at least Norway's and Sweden's to it would be massive. The infra is in place or being built for it, including off-base options to scatter aircraft to avoid them being hit on the air fields, like air strips built on otherwise civilian highways.
I'll admit I don't know much about naval warfare, but sure would help to have even the navies of fellow Baltic Sea nations to add to the mine-laying expertise of the Finns. We can surely mine the crap out of the Finnish Gulf and the archipelago, but there's not much we could do about Kaliningrad or the Arctic Sea on our own.
While NATO already had some access to Kola peninsula, home of Russia's Arctic fleet, via Norway, Finland's borders do offer a way better pressure point.
@@samhartford8677 Finland the defense budget is 3% of GDP, almost as much as the USA. USA 3.5% GDP, we don't have any polar bears. But maybe 1000 grizzly bears. Finlad loses 26706 more than 200,000 Soviet heroes fell in the winter war.
I think Finland joining NATO is a greater worry for Russia than any other nation joining NATO apart from Ukraine. Finland’s military is excellent with good equipment, leadership and personnel with focus on rapid mobilisation for defence against a Russian incursion; it has a circa 1,000km border with Russia which is the longest of any NATO frontier; every Finn is extremely patriotic and prepared to perform military service; the Finnish military, border guards, civil police and emergency services frequently jointly train for hostile incursions and terror attacks; and by Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Scandinavia is militarily unified for the first time since the Kalmar Union and the Baltic is now a NATO lake.
@@andrewcombe8907 most finns are patriots, we have our share of traitors, lickspittles and home-ruskies.
Thanks for the positive comment. I would even say that we are only country the Europe which has been constantly preparing for CCCP/Russian invasion since 1940s. For us the the end of Cold War meant that we got good equipment for low price while all others we lowering their defence capabilities.
You Think ! wtf You are not a Finnish person how can even think about that? Read the ww2 history in the Leningrad front first
@@markogronfors3826 Yeah, sorry, it's you who is not a Finn or from a fellow NATO country.
Finland is worry for russia only in their propaganda. Why would anybody attack them? Finland and Sweden as part of NATO makes any russian stupidity here in north and Baltic region out question.
One point, during World War II the Finnish Army did not participate in the Siege of Leningrad. Mannerheim ouright refused to attack the city and threatened to resign if he was ordered to do so. Finnish forces occupied the old border area and stayed there. Also they didn't allow the German's to use Finnish territory to attack the city either. Mannerheim probably understood that the Russians would never forgive or forget an attack like that.
Plus apparently Mannerheim, having served in the Russian Tzar's army, had a picture of him in his house even after the war. And there's still a status of Alexander the Second in Helsinki. We just did not want the Russians in Finland. Obviously there were some radical right lunatics who had other plans, but they did not command the army.
They did help starve them tho
@@LlL-ef5gy That was incidental not intentional. We can speculate on the course of events had the Finnish army not been there. I don't think it would have changed the outcome. The German's would have changed their plans accordingly and the result would have been the same.
@@LlL-ef5gy how do you think Finland could have secured the Karelian Isthmus flank WITHOUT advancing to the pre-1940 border? If Russians want to blame someone for Finnish forces coming so close to Leningrad, they should point their fingers at Peter the Great who BUILT the city there with the full knowledge that the border being so close to the city would be a problem.
On long range air defense: Finland has ordered an Israeli David’s Sling air defense system
The military history of Finland is a lot longer than its independence. For example many of the soldiers in Swedish armies were Finns and they earned fierce reputation when fighting central European countries. The reputation from WW2 is just a continuation from the old times.
The one thing that always bothers me when people talk about Finnish history is that they always focus on the fact that we were a Russian satellite for a 100 years but always leave out that before that we were part of Sweden for 700 years. I think this will make Finland look like were culturally closely related to Russians when were actually much more culturally related to swedes.
This is not true. Finland has been an essential part of Novgorod and Russia and anything before that because our people are closely related - the people in the Moscow region are 67% Finno-Ugrian. Collaboration was based on friendship and same culture - since 1809 Russian tsars developed quickly our industries and economy. Before that, Sweden very violently occupied Finland and kept us as war slaves - and tried to force us to change our native language.
@@mikkopunkari1676Sorry to say but obviously you know nothing of Finnish history.
The unknown solider has three films on it, the first having all of the actors actually fight in the war. Both the earliest and the most recent are considered national treasures, are played every year and are very good.
Mollberg's Tuntematon sotilas has always been my favourite. The latest version is horrible IMO.
@@hextatik_sound 👍
´´All actors actually fight in the war´´The statement is exaggerated,some of them probably ´´served´´in entertaiment groups,
more likely microphone than rifle in their hands.Most of them are born 1926 or later.
@@hextatik_sound I agree. Mollberg version is realistic and dark. Amazing actors like in the the roles of Koskela and Lammio. And there's no music at all which makes it feel real.
Get excited any time you upload.
Thanks!
some corrections... finns were ordered to stop by mannerheim in continuation war even though they could have demonstrably easily broken the railroad to murmansk because finnish leadership foresaw that this would be a key argument in the future to claim that they were not in an actual alliance with germany and that they were only interested in reclaiming lost lands, not destroying the soviet union... all of this they directly said even to their contacts like churchill even at the time... not questionable facts... murmansk line and leningrad could have easily been parts of finnish operations with their resources and success, but finnish leadership simply commanded everyone to stop as they were reaching them. So, a long story short... the finns were not a direct part of the siege of leningrad because of their own choice, even though militarily it would have made quite a lot of sense like the breaking of the murmansk line would have made a lot of sense... finns chose not to do what they could have relatively easily done and its one of the most fundamental parts of the continuation war... also, it needs emphasizing that finland was able to mobilize over 800000 people in continuation war from a smaller than modern population and has therefore demonstrated that the modern reserve numbers are not just numbers... according to evidence they are completely utilizable and are the real numbers of finnish army in war.
Thank you for your video! Few points from a Finn:
- Finland has fougt four wars during her independce: Civil war (1918), Winter War, Continuation war and the Lapland war (1945).
- The Mannerheim line as a ”bunker network” is a myth created by the Soviet (due a reason that they had severe problems to get through). There were few bunkers there and there but mostly the line was a network of open trenches.
- During the Winter War, the war in the Karelian isthmus was WW1 like war of attrition, warfare in the north was mobile and based on encirclement of the enemy and deep engagements.
- The share of the Finnish defense budget in GDP differs from NATO's calculation formula. In Finland, e.g. Pensions and the largest equipment purchases are financed from outside the defense budget.
- Finland acquired a total of 96 K9 Thunder from South-Korea.
- In addition with CV-90, Finland has around 100 BMP-2 MD (modernized version).
Thank you.
And Finland very specifically did not take part in the siege of Leningrad.
10:20 Would be interesting to hear you expand a bit on what you meant. But from a Finnish reservist perspective: We think of the next war as good vs. evil, because Russia always has and always will fight wars of extermination against their enemies. War crimes and terror are part of their doctrine, as seen in Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Chechnya and every war they fought before. This is how they have fought wars for millennia. So it will be a war of survival and the right to exist or Finns once again. In this sense it's the same war as e.g. the Winter war. We have no rosy thoughts about the war being fought at the border or there being any safe areas in modern war. The Finnish military planned for the cold war to be fought with nuclear and chemical weapons in the mix, and this is still being trained. The Finnish military doctrine from 2015 focuses not on holding ground but allowing the frontline to move back and forth and cause as much casualties as possible against the enemy. The size of units all the way down to squad level have increased to accommodate for modern war being more deadly. Ukraine war experiences were being incorporated in training already in 2022.
However, as they say, “amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics”: the ministry of defence had already doubled their artillery ammunition production in spring 2022 as an immediate response to the Russian invasion. Why, you ask? To fill the wartime storages. As in, war is coming now - get it while it lasts. By end of 2022, the defmin reported that Finnish wartime stocks were filled and new caches were being built to expand the wartime stocks further. Small arms ammunition production had then increased five-fold. This was in combination with additional orders for AT, AA, missiles, torpedoes, and every other type of munition needed for immediate wartime use. These stocks are filled. Finland is ready to go. They are now working on constructing new artillery ammunition production facilities, i.e. actively preparing for long term war in Europe.
Footnote: You left out half the IFV force, 110 BMP-2MD, which are Soviet made but upgraded with western electronics, thermal imaging and thermal camo, etc.
I do not expect any more rocket propelled artillery. One missile cost 10 000 times more than grenade with equal effect.
Finland is one large forest. Nature of pointing out targets is more like drawing a large circle on a map rather than pinpoint cordinates.
All artillery is connected into net. You can order strike into any location and no matter where those artillery pieces are, they fire so that each of the 6, 12 or 24 grenades land on same are at the same time.
Cost of one barrage is way less than fully loaded MLRS and can shoot again into another location immediately.
Towed artillery can be deployed under 30minutes with full camo. From planes and drones it look's like tree trunk on a mossy hill. Add several hours and position is fortified with underground shelters, mines, anti-air and anti-tank systems. These are all always included.
I've often heard that Finns also lack attack helicopters and aircraft carriers. We have to keep in mind where and how we fight.
So my prediction is drones, surveillance equipment and updating current armory.
Rocket artillery aint going away. It was only like a year ago when Finland said that they are upgrading there entire M270 rocket launch systems.
No matter the costs, rocket aint going away. Look at Poland, they have ordered like 450+- 480+ launchers, thats more launchers than USA curently have in its own inventory.
A rocket can do stuff a grenade cant do u know, its 2 entierly diffrent weapon systems. So both of those are staying in the millitary , U cant just look at costs, and think some "grenade system" is better use than a rocket system, just cause its cheaper to use, they both have there own uses.
@@jimmiekarlsson4458 Yeah, different uses. But if we think about the terrain where the war would be fought, those grenade systems will be most beneficial. Heavily forested area with a ton of water spots that will force the attacker to navigate via specific areas -> most likely a lot of troops on a quite small area. Not much heavy (or any) building infrastructure to provide cover.
Those rocket/missile systems do have their place in destroying command posts etc., but what Russia has a lot is troops (and some tanks left still I guess), so ammo quantity will be essential (and the ability shoot/bomb with precision).
Reputation of course depends on what you've heard, but Finland's military history as a regional thing precedes the Viking era. There are fortifications known in Finland from the Stone Age onwards. The oldest sword earthed in Finland dates to 1700-1500 BC. There are around 100 known Bronze Age hillforts in Finland. The list of early Finnish wars and conflicts starts from the 4th century. Hundreds of Viking Era swords have been earthed in Finland. For hundreds of years Finland was the eastern part of Sweden, which meant that the Finns were E.g. part of Gustavus Adolphus' army and military campaigns. The ten peace treaties regarding Finland's eastern border were made from the year 1323 onwards. During the Crimean War, being part of Russian Empire brought the Anglo-French naval force against military and civilian facilities on the coast of Finland. The Suomenlinna Fortress was known as the Gibraltar of the North. Mannerheim himself was a Lieutenant-General in the Russian army when Finland gained its independence. The wars Finland has been involved during its independence include also The Finnish Civil War, The Kinship Wars and The Lapland War. The Kinship Wars includes E.g. The Estonian War of Independence. The Lapland War Finland fought against Germany. Then there are the peace keeping and NATO led operations. Throughout the time Finnish individuals have gained military know-how in various wars and conflicts around the world and often brought that knowledge to Finland. E.g. Aarne "The Terror of Morocco" Juutilainen had served in the French Foreign Legion before he became a national hero in the Battle of Kollaa during the Winter War.
Finland was prepared for the war, but the Continuation War started after the Soviet Union had bombed Finnish cities. Also, Finland didn't take part in the Siege of Leningrad-not even after Germany wanted Finland to do that. For the most parts Finnish troops advanced only to the border of the 1920 Treaty of Tartu. This was significant regarding to the post-war Finnish-Soviet relationships, which the Finnish leadership foresee already during the war. During the Cold War Finland did a balancing act between the East and the West. While Finland was viewed as a neutral country, the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 obligated Finland to deter Western or Allied Powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finland. This partly resulted E.g. to Soviet Union selling Finland MIG-21s in 1963. On the other hand, E.g. during the 80s, Finland had a "mutual understanding" with the West and had the same rights and obligations as the CoCom countries.
I think to fully understand where the Finnish army spirit started, you should read about Gustavus Adolphus and his Finnish cavalry. The king understood that these are simple men that cannot do fancy stuff with their horses like the caracole, but instead they had the guts to ride right through the enemy formation.
At that time in the 1600's the Finns still killed bears without firearms: the hunter would approach the bear with a 'karhukeihäs', a bear spear, and attract the bear to attack. The attacking bear would jump against the spear, which the hunter tried to point at the heart, the other end of the spear held firmly on the ground. This method required good nerves and close contact with a way stronger opponent that could hit your head off with its paw, given a chance.
Thanks for your excellent video, Michael.
I wish you strength for your own country's internal battles for the next couple of days.
Take care.
I'm going to need a lot of strength between now and inauguration day.
What most americans call «reserve forces» in a conscript system is really the main army to be mobilized when needed. The «standing army» is just the education system to make the mobilization army.
Finland still use bicycles. No reson to stop using them. Actually new bike model came like 5 years ago.
We dont need "dog teams" in winter because we have skies and every kid have skiing in school and in army.
Army have dogs but those are mostly to hunt Russians with military police.
Also there have been testing with electic bikes. If you have to move lets say batallion of infantry 100km fast, bicycles are good for that. If there is enemy ahead of the round, units can just ignore them and go around of them. Also dont need to think about the charge because the mission is now completed and forces are ahead of enemy retreat.
Best example of using bicycles forces was in 1918 when there was indepence war in Finland. Main battles were over but Kymenlaakso area need to be clean. There were heavy fighting all direction west, north and east, but bisycle units came move 50km behind enemy lines and capture Inkeroinen railway junksion. 500 man take 3000 prisoners and atleast same number get stuck north of them. Other bicycle units also take porttowns Hamina and Kotka almost no casualties. 5000 prisoners there. Who have tried to flee to Russia.
I can confirm that. Though many of the bikes are from 40s 😅.
Was waiting for another video. Very helpful and educational. Can’t wait for a video about Germany. I think videos about countries outside Europe would also be very interesting but completely understand taking care of more familiar countries first. Great content. Keep up the good work!!
Thank you
The Unknown Soldier is one of my favorite war movies - and is available for purchase or to rent on RUclips!
If you want a more authentic ww2 atmospheric war movie, watch the 1956 film version of the unknown soldier, that is my favorite war movie... Most of the Actors in that film had really been in that war...
As indicated by the first reply, there is more than one Unknown Soldier (Tuntematon Sotilas) movie. There are *at least* 3 and there is also a (longer) TV Series.
At least one of the versions is on Finnish TV once a year (probably Dec 6th - Finnish Independence Day. I (living in Finland since 1989) would be happy if they could think of something else to show as there are several good - more normal - Continuation War films they could show instead. It would make a pleasant change.
The swastika in use in Finnish airforce wasn't strictly Finnish symbology, it was taken from a Swedish noble's coat of arms as he gifted Finland the first planes that would make the Finnish airforce
Correct and long before nazis existed.
Coincidentally the Swedish noble later became a leading figure in Sweden's own national socialist movement in the 1930s. His sister also married Hermann Göring in 1923.
@@formatique_arschlochlong before? The nazis used swastika from 1920 onwards and the plane was gifted in 1918.
@@Hurduri yeah, but the coat of arms was much older
@@peigeot9906 and the origin of that swastika was from india , where the right handed swastika (sun) symbolises power and purity whilst the mirror night and misery, Nazis also tilted theirs... little things matter.
Few equipment related points that play a big role into the "cost effectiveness" that was one of the big topics of the video:
Finland's 41 MLRS used to have just the "old stuff" munitions on them, that is, cluster munitions, but it became clear that they left way too many undetonated live munitions into the terrain. Finland actually put a lot of research into improving them so they'd detonate more securely (my wife worked heavily on that subject for a time), especially after Iraq war proved them to be problematic for civilian population after the conflict itself ended. But there was never good answer, so the only cluster munitions Finland ever had were mines that were able to self detonate later. In 2015 the vehicles got updated with Universal Fire Control System, along with imports of GMLRS munitions from the U.S. that made them modern, longer range, and most importantly guided. (You could call them missiles but U.S. and Finland still call them "rockets"). Latest update is from 2022, with ER (extended range) GLMRS munitions modernizing them further.
It's the same thing with most military equipment in Finland. While Finland and Sweden do have a new AR/DMR/SR family coming from Sako soon(tm) it seems, you can take the "service rifle", RK-62 as an example. It came out in 1962, but the latest step in that rifle's life is the "modification 3" variant of it that allows mounted optics, silencers and whatnot, making it a modern combatant's tool. Simply because it's much cheaper than getting something all new for a force (including projected volunteers and such) of 1.1 million strong. Since you can't really do anything without something that spits lead down range, I'm quite sure RK-62 won't be fully retired any time soon, no matter how fast they produce the new family of weapons. Not until the reservists who trained with it and mastered it get old.
As for the "Finnish readiness" and volunteering spirit, I think my little family is a good example. While women can volunteer to do military service these days, neither me or my wife did, for various reasons (my health being one the big ones). That doesn't mean we can't do anything if there's an invasion. I'm confident in my skill with a Sako TRG M10, and my wife uses an assault rifle and a pistol in a sport that is aimed at reservists to maintain their skills, and also anyone else wanting to improve their weapon handling and learn "real life" combat scenarios, called SRA-shooting. We also know outdoors life style, orienteering (which we learn at school) and such well enough, traveling and living in Finnish nature for a time is no problem. If the conflict is prolonged and the need for everyone who can to pick up arms arises, we can and will do it. Obviously at first we'd go work in a factory to replace men and women that are now fighting, to produce food products or whatever - That's just as important. Fleeing the country however is absolutely out of the question, we'd rather die and take as many invaders with us as possible. Make sure the price is indeed high.
We Finns take our defence forces very seriously. 86% of the population was prepared to defend Finland in case of war. That was before the Ukrainian war starter, and would be even higher today. Basically every man feel pride in joining the military, and even Kimi Räikkönen the former F1 champion had to join the military as most of all famous Finnish men have done. 🇫🇮💪🙏🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦💪🇫🇮🙏
I hit the like button and added this comment for the algorithm. Finland was not a part of the siege of Leningrad because Mannerheim understood that when the war was over, Russia would still be Finland's neighbour. Finland did not attack or cut off vital supplies to Leningrad. Additionally, Mannerheim loved St. Petersburg because he had lived there while serving for the Czar's army. Finland was not a formal ally of Germany because they had not signed into the Tripartite Act. Instead they were brothers-in-arm while fighting a common enemy, the Soviets. This distinction had consequences for Finland after the wars were over. Cheers
2:10 The other two wars were the Civil war 1917-18, and the Lapland war of 1944-45 (vs Germany).
Very informative video! Thank you!
Calls to remove swastika from finnish air force insignias are fragile flagburning tier foolishness.
So you think we should keep honoring a swedish nazi with a swastika whose sister married Hermann Göring just because they donated a couple of airplanes?
The Finnish Army used to be full of Ashkenazi (Khazar-Jews) officers deported from Russia by tsars (as e.g. Mannerheim). They had cool relations with Hitler's officers but allowed Germans to establish concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers to Karelia and even in Finland. Swastika from Finnish air force was not a problem.
@@mikkopunkari1676 "allowed Germans to establish concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers to Karelia and even in Finland" -- What on earth are you talking about? Where exactly were those "German concentration camps for Russian Jewish soldiers" located, in Karelia / Finland? Who commanded them and how many prisoners did they keep? How did they end up at the final stages of the war?
How come history knows nothing about these alleged "German concentration camps in Finland"? Only Putinists keep telling lies of the internment camps that were the normal practice in WW2 all over the world with enemy civilians who were considered as a security risk.
It appears you are telling shameful lies to promote Putin's propaganda.
Keep up the great work of showing the less known NATO armies (Italy, Finland). Now that you mentioned it in your video do you have a plan for doing Turkey?
I saw someone commenting (a year ago or something) about Fibland joining NATO something along the lines of "how big troops do you think allies would send and it would take time blah blah blah". The biggest support we would need is supplies. Ammo, weapons, healthcare stuff, food etc. And I think our NATO allies know that and this is one reason why Finland is so warmly welcomed.
Swartika comes from a Swedish count whose family in the coat of arms is it. It donated a couple of planes to Finland in 1917 and also a couple of planes during the winter war.
Bicycle moble infantry is great.
"We shall never surrender".
The Unknown Soldier is one the best WW2 books. The title means that, WW2 soldiers were glorified after the war and this book searched to display them in a light, that those guys were normal persons too.
Unfortunately, the English translation (at least the one that was available in the 1970's) is lousy, and it even includes altered parts of the original plot of the novel. The soldier characters have become classics among Finnish readers, and many of its phrases have become famous quotes, but I doubt whether their specific and localized subcultural contexts will be understood by foreign readers. The book is fiction, but unfortunately some people take it even as history writing.
The original Unknown Soldier movie (black and white movie) is playing in Finnish television channels every independence Day. Lately the new version has been pkayed too.
I need to see that.
@@michaelshurkin613 It is in Netflix as 5 part mini series, a bit longer than movie theater version. However it listed me only nordic subtitles, not english, so I'm not sure how worldwide the availability is.
Thanks for this very good video. Did not know about the Molotov cocktail origin.. Also very interesting about the bike units. May it will difficult for a soldier to carry modern anti tank weapon on it.
These bikes are used for marches basically, much faster and more comfortable. Obviously you would transport any heavy stuff with trucks.
Bikes are not meant for front lines, but if you need to move troops behind your own lines by marching, it's very cheap and efficient way to do so.
Armored Brigade had, not 100% sure though that it still has, using BMP-2 IFV´s.
Number what you realy should look is that over 80% of Finns are ready to fight if their country is attacked
But huge amount of Finns have left the reserve and refused to fight for USA-NATO in a possible war. I know a hundert of them.
Interesting
Finland wasn't really a part of the siege of Leningrad. Finns basically stood down where the old border went (except for defensive considerations), which just happens to be fairly close. There were calls from the Germans to close the siege.
We did block them on one side so practically part of the siege.
@@hartyewh1Yes an no. If blocking something by standing at your own border is a siege, it is like saying Germany is having a siege of Denmark right now, blocking it from entering further into Germany. Of course there was war, but the actual siege was carried out by only German troops that were standing between Leningrad and the rest of the USSR.
@@sampohonkala4195 Have I been tricked by some propaganda or something. Even Wikipedia says that we blocked Leningrad from the north, but others claim we didn't prevent any movement of supplies etc. What's a solid source on this?
@@hartyewh1 Most likely explanation - Finland did try to take part in siege of Leningrad but did a crappy job that USSR supplies got through anyway. & Finland got decent deniability of not being Nazi allies, even though many politicians of Finland in early 1940's were.
@@hartyewh1Finland didnt prevent supplies from flowing in, which was a thing that pissed off Hitler, even though Finland did have the means to do it. IIRC, there was some strikes/harassing but nothing major to actually try to cut the route off. Some of it is hypothetical, as we don't know what went in his mind, but some believed that Mannerheim was fairly sure the Germans were going to lose in the end (and possible emotional ties to the city as well) and thought that if Finland were to take part in the siege actively, and especially if the city were to fall, any chance of negotiating anything but a total surrender later on would go straight out of the window.
You missed the about 100 BMP-2MD that Finland still actively use.
Thank you for this, but i think you left out a very important thing and that is the populations willingness to defend the country which is 82% !
Our people is willing to defend the country but not to fight for USA-NATO or any other foreign country. Probably the army could find a hundred mercenaries to fight abroad if art. 5 is applied.
How could you, as a military analyst, not know anything about Finland's military history? It is awesome!
Hakkaa Päälle!
Finland is just one of those countries you do not want to invade. It is where Muscowites freeze to death. And Finland is an independent country still, because they know what it takes to be a free country; a strong military. I wish the rest of us Scandies- or Europe, would imitate their mobilisation system. And no, I did not watch the video, I was just shocked how you could not know. I am sorry, there are surely many basic things I do not know.
At 4:16 No, Stalin could not go any further. The Red Army was beaten in the Tali - Ihantala battles and could not get any further. They simply ran out of time as they needed all their troops for the race for Berlin, so after losing in Ihantala and Ilomantsi they would have needed new troops to continue - which they did not have, as the only troops were marching towards Berlin. The only way the USSR could have conquered Finland was beating Germany first and then come back for Finland for a new, separate war. To avoid that Finland accepted the peace terms although at the moment it was not losing. Finland had destroyed the Red Army. My father-in-law was fighting at Ihantala and after those battles the discussion among men was if Finland should try to take Viborg back, as there were only weak Soviet troops defending it. That is when the peace came.
Actually if you translate the title of that Finnish novel directly into English you get "The Unknown Soldier."
Your comments on bicycles is interesting. The British Commandos in WW2 were issued with bicycles for DDay and promptly discarded them. The Japanese used bicycles when invading Malaya. The Swiss had bicycle troops but disbanded them in 2003.
Your first two examples show exactly what they should not be used for. Offensive operations. The Swiss used them correctly, as did others like the Finns and Swedes. As a faster and more comfortable alternative to marching - far from the fight.
Bikes are for fast marches on roads to move troops. Extremely effective for that purpose. And especially in Finland, our Russian border is mostly very deep forest, but it has been prepared for defense so there's roads inside those woods. Ultimately, if you have roads, bikes are very useful.
@@EggwardEgghandsthe Japanese used the bicycle offensively to quickly advance and defeat the British.
@@EggwardEgghands the Jäger Brigade of the Finnish Army used bicycles to keep up with the tanks and assault guns of the Armoured Brigade during offensive operations, the movie Tali-Ihantala 1944 shows a good example of this.
Just a remark on the side: the colour scheme of the like comment subscribe page looks more suited for a fashion influencer 😅
Great video and analysis!
I think one thing that could be mentioned is the concept of Total Defence. That means, in addition to the Defence Forces, the nation is brought into the defence planning. For example regarding companies designated "strategically important" for the defence of the country. Key people from those companies are regularly invited by the FDF to wargame how their companies would act in a time of crisis. I happen to work in one and the higher bosses attend those kinds of events regularly. Also I have a couple of colleagues that are designated as "important for the war effort" and cannot be called into service.
Some comments:
3:40 I would say that Finland got as far as the old border between Finland and the Soviet Union 😉 You can see the old border on the map at 5:30 and that is pretty much as far as the Finnish Army advanced in the Isthmus in the continuation war. The old border was very, very close to Leningrad. The frontline was pretty much a straight line from about the southern starting point of the old border to the northern end point.
4:20 Yes, Stalin saw Berlin as a more better price than to try to take Finland. Because when peace came, Finland had managed to stop the Soviet summer offensive, started to even push back in some parts of the front and rest of the forces were beginning to regroup into restarting the offensive. So Stalin would have needed to commit much more troops and that would have meant he would´ve lost Berlin.
5:48 "The Finnish couldn´t afford the Maginot Line" but after the Winter War you get the "hold my beer" moment. Check out the Salpaline that was built during the Interim peace. The biggest construction effort in the history of Finland.
12::57, the 280 000 war-time strength and 870 000 reserves are the numbers that are given officially by the FDF. I would post a link but RUclips does not like links.
14:04 A good source for how much Finland has equipment is the Vienna 2011 Document of Annual Exchange of Military Information.
16:34 When Russia started it´s full invasion of UKraine in 2022, I remember reading an interview of an higher up in the FDF. He said that Russia is attacking Ukraine in way against which Finland has been training and preparing for all these decades.
20:46 Finland has decided to purchase the David’s Sling system.
22:00 And mines, lots of mines. Pretty new ones that are a little bit nasty pieces. Finland is getting also 4 new frigates that want to be called corvettes 😆
Finland was also smart during the peacefull period after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Finland bought from many countries equipment that were modern but almost unused. For example, Finland bought almost all Leopards (they kept like 16) and all their MLRS´s of the Netherlands Armed Forces 😆
If you are interested, there is a video by the FDF about a potential (pre-NATO) scenario how Finland would react if it comes under attack. The video is called Taistelukenttä 2020 or Battlefield 2020 and has english subtitles (if you remember to enable those).
How the scenario advances has scary similitaries on how Russia escalated the war in 2022.
You also omit what might be the most important result of 🇫🇮 and 🇸🇪 NATO membership: acces to airfields to deny the Baltic to the Russian Navy and support the Baltics if Russia invades.
Ukraine has shown that massive amounts of infantry and conventional artillery is still where it's at. All the expensive high tech stuff is nice but when there's a 100,000 dudes rolling across the fields in your direction you need power, not precision. Both sides there are still using Soviet gear and it works just fine for the type of warfare that they're fighting. Then there's the new layers that have been introduced on top of it like drone warfare. The Finnish Defense Forces have been looking into that and is seeking an option that'll work for us. They're also looking into getting nightvision gear for the entire conscripted reserve so that no opposition can terrorize us with night drones.
Oh, and we still have those bicycles. I did my conscription in a motorized brigade so we didn't use them much but we still had them. This was like 11 years ago.
Totally agree about the old tech. And I recently read that conscripts still do some bicycle training. Meaning, the bikes are all in storage, just in case.
@@michaelshurkin613 The most important thing is bicycles don't need gasoline. When times get rough it is very much possible that mechanized infantry stays jammed but with bicycles infantry can move relative fast. I served in coastal jaegers and even we had those in storage but actually used only in part of "baret march".
when it comes to most of our (i am Finnish) old soviet armored vehicles they mostly are modified to purpose so they might be old platforms but modified to purposes like fire command vehicles etc.
For anyone interested about the specifics of the naming of Molotov cocktail, it was indeed named after the Foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. During the war there was heavy bombing on civilian targets among military ones by the Soviet air force but Molotov claimed on radio broadcasts that there were no bombings and that the Soviet Air Force was merely dropping food supplies to the starving Finns. Finns started to call these bombs "Molotov's breadbaskets" and devised a cocktail as a drink to go with the food.
Finland were under russia rule (not part of russia) but before that finland were under sweden rule like 600 years. So we have never been part of russia. And never will.
Corrections:
- Independent Finland has gone throuh 4 wars, not 2; Civil War, Winter War, Continuation War and Lapland War, but understandably only 2 of those are really relevant to the subject matter.
- Fighting like lions was more appropriate considering the lion is a very common animal in Finnish iconography. A regular brown bear would be an appropriate second option, albeit the bear is more often associated with the Russians. Polar bears has no significance, or presence in Finland whatsoever.
- The Finnish Air Force swastika is actually closely related to Nazism as it was the personal symbol of a Swedish noble Eric von Rosen who was the leader of the Swedish Nazi Party and brother-in-law of Hermann Goering himself. So yes, while it was adopted in Finnish Airforces before the German Nazi party did, the Air Forces swastika is still objectively directly related to nazism, which is why it was removed from use. Only still used by the Air Force Academy anymore.
If war broke out FDF would aquire lots of vehicles from civilians. Trucks, ATVs, off road vehicles, tractors etc. With so big reserve army there would be no point of having huge stock of army vehicles during peace time. Reserve army - reserve transportation.
As nuclear powers main priority of UK and France should be a dominant navy like the good old times. Combined with a strong airforce but also a rapidly employable mechanized force with drone capability that can reinforce the frontlines. For defence a good amount of artillery and anti air systems.
Only some 100+ years of russian regime ('The Grand Duchy of Finland"). Unfortunately, the constant warfare weakened the Kingdom of Sweden, they lost yet again another war in 1808 and 1/3 of the Kingdom since 800+ years (Finland) got lost to russians.
Yet still, Finland has only two official languages, Finnish and Swedish (BTW, we do speak English too, inspite of the horrible attack of British Navy to Aland Islands in 1850's caused by some Russian aggression against....)😎😂
Woot, little Finland mentioned!
26:56 interesting point, I’d argue that the Western armour is deterrence and the NATO counter attack force
Title needs changing mate
Yeah, got it. I honestly was still working on it but accidently hit publish. Normally I have them go up Monday mornings at 6:30am.
"The US survived against the greatest Superpower of the time (Britain) in the war of 1812" sorry Michael, as much as I love your channel and your videos (I’m a fan!), Britain was not the greatest superpower of the time and it’s never been a superpower, that distinction goes to Napoleon’s France (call a spade a spade). Britain was not a land power at the time (it has never been a land power) and could not defeat any of the major powers of the time (Prussia, Russia, Austrian Empire) on land without help, they themselves barely survived against Napoleon’s (inept) marshals in Spain and although they celebrate Waterloo, they would have most certainly lost that battle to an army of conscripts had the Germans not intervened in time. I think what you could say about the British is that they had a capable Navy (not anymore, they’re bankrupt), they invested allot into its equipment, the development of its warships, training and controlled vast land masses outside Europe rich in resources that they never quiet truly leveraged. Not a good comparison. The 1939 Winter War (USSR vs Finland: keep in mind the USSR was a formation of 15 Republics including Ukraine - the USSR was a Superpower) showed the world, and in particular Hitler, that Stalin had done a thorough job of purging the Red Army and the consequences of that decision, but even Stalin learnt from this mistake and his army was able to recover just in time to save him and the USSR. Love you Michael :)!
There is also the film "SISU", which tells about the time after the war, when the Germans are still in the country.
Finland has already acquired Israel’s David’s Sling long-range air defense system, which should be up and running pretty soon. After major investments in the air force (F-35s) and navy (new corvettes), the next big focus is on the land forces. Upgrades, mid-life updates, and some new capabilities are all in the works.
Finland: Well, if you are Russian to start something, just know that we Finnish it. (Yes, yes--- wince, cringe, groan)
Would love to see your take on Spain please
but we cannot fight 21st war with 20nd equipment. we cannot merely fight with the memory of winter war.
we must upgrade ourselves as much as Poland. to start not only majorly producing, but also researching.
half of our artillery and everything is cold war. we can easily take 10milllion people Israel as our example of home-grown "military-industrial complex"(government subsidized defense industry) for our own needs.
Actually there isn't much equipment from 1980's or older in Finnish army. Sure there is some but not all stuff get old fashioned. Like mortars, assault rifles and some vehicles. Also some stuff is upgraded. But such things like mtb:s, missiles etc are modern.
And you can't compare with Israel because they have a huge sponsor. You can look the stats and notice that basicly USA pays the whole military budget of Israel. But I agree that we could have even more military industry. Now we have good ammo production, apc production, artillery/mortar stuff production, and some other things like that next level "s-mine" developing. Still I think we should have domestic AA production in different levels. I'm not sure about developing long distance AA missiles but we should invest a lot to drones and anti-drone production, jammers and traditional AA guns against drones.
We also fought War of Lapland against Nazis 44-45.. As part of the peace Treaty with USSR..
Polar bears in Finland.. Comoon.
Oh, get used to it. Americans think there are polar bears in Poland. And we're much further south than you guys.
Fought like lions, or should I say like polar bears... He did not say polar bears are our native animal.
A total of 96 K9 SPGs are in various stages of delivery (from already in use to still on order). Meanwhile the 1970s 122 PSH 74 (originally 2S1 Gvozdika), bought used in the 90s like a lot of other stuff, will be phased out/replaced by the K9s and some have in fact been spotted in Ukraine already. Finland is also in the process procuring new Sisu GTP MRAPs to replace it's fleet RG-32 Scouts.
The D-30 is in a somewhat strange position in that a medium howitzer is still needed on the battefield today, but there really isn't all that much around in that segment. The British L119 (M119 in the US) is probably a bit better (the range is a bit better and the ammunition weighs less) but is it enough better to buy several hundred of them? Especially since it's not being manufactured anymore? Probably not..
There are too many inaccuracies here, had to stop watching. Please research a bit more 😮
Finland was only country in Europe which took part in WW2 and was never annexed (Of course UK didnt either because its an island) and wasnt pile of rubble either. Its quite well done if you think that we fought two wars against Soviet Union and one against Germany.
I don't think the Soviet stuff, like MT-LB and BMP-2 are going to disappear any time soon. MT-LB was basically bought in large numbers for dirt cheap when the Cold War ended and the unified Germany needed to get rid of the large East German stock of Eastern Bloc stuff. BMP-2 were also affordable enough and have been heavily modernised by Finland. Though that being said, Ukraine has shown they are steel coffins for the crew. CV90 are ten times better, but they are also expensive. With the F-35, new frigates, more K9 units, and long range AA systems, I reckon the defence forces need to carefully think where to put the remaining money. It will probably look more attractive to keep the old Soviet iron around.
There's a good RUclips presentation of the history of Jews in Finland by John B. Simon: Strangers in a Stranger Land: Finland's Jewish Soldiers in WWII.
I second this recommendation. I think I have listened that lecture twice already!
Lapland war 1944-45.
Yikes..forgot that
@@michaelshurkin613 that isnt a real war let be honest. Batallion of the youngest men watch division of Germans skiing down the mountains and drinking. Finns would have no change to attack them so army didnt even give any units to try.
More important is Finnish independence war in 1918.
The last point - "how do we support" is completely underlined by Ukraine ... It is now perhaps the most salient point.
Yes
@@michaelshurkin613 It is also worth noting that warfare is changing - Ukraine is showing that (conventional arms) "mass" is being counterweighted by technology - Drones, Individual portable Anti -Armour / anti Air / drone remote mine drops & precision missiles (HIMARS et al) . All of those are "supply support" as opposed to needing other countries boots & equipment on the ground. I know that Artillery is still the biggest killer on the battlefield : but a lot of the the tactical gains are being propagated by this technology. If your allies are supported in this manner - They punch (or defend) considerably harder than their conventional 'mass' suggests.
280 000 would be the size of the mobilized finnish military. 870 000 is the pool of reservists the military would be formed from. These 870k includes people that have been trained and are not too old, so they could be potentially called up. They are the pool that can also be called up to fill the ranks and reinforce the military. The way that 280k might go up, would be by forming new units from that pool of reservists, after receiving aid from the allies, but that kind of thing is pure speculation. 280 000 is already plenty big for rest of the country to support, and already has many shortages of equipment that would need to be filled, way before calling in more troops. So bottom line; the size of the mobilized military is not something between 100 000 and 900 000, but 280 000.
That is not true. At the peak of the Continuation War Finland had 500 000 troops at arms. The population was around 4 million and the older generations had never received military training that had only started in 1919 . We definitely can have way more than 280 000 on the front now If needed.
In comparison if usa had the same system finland does, they would have army of 16 million and 55 million in reserves.
Meillä on ensilinjan reservi 280,000. Mutta meidän reservin koko on yli 900,000 ja jokaiselle on rynnäkkökivääri. Meillä on yli 1500 yli 120mm tykistöasetta.
We have a first line reserve of 280,000. But our reserve size is over 900,000 and everyone has an assault rifle. We have more than 1500 artillery guns over 120mm.
finland have use lot´s of money air force ( f-35 ) and marines (new ships and boats ) in last years. now is infantry time to say,what they need and get :)
Nothing about the upcoming navy corvettes? Or K-9 artillery? F-35?
24:00 i wonder if the increasing use of electric bikes in ukraine and within NATO Special Operations are an example of how the utility of bikes are being seen.
Many ppl here have told me that I will get banned for my emblem... Most of em even finns! Well, almost a decade has past; no ban.
Good. I'm pleased to be able to do my part by bringing it up and explaining.
Finns were never very active part of siege of leningrad.
They helped seal off the zone, though.
@@michaelshurkin613 Of course, there was the front line across the Karelian Isthmus (between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga). Front lines were naturally nowhere in WW2 meant to be crossed, thus sealing off all traffic, but seldom called a "siege" - and looking at the map: where on earth would the Soviets have wanted to travel along the Karelian Isthmus, while it was all re-taken and controlled by Finns, as well as the whole northern side of Ladoga?
But there were specific orders from the Supreme HQ for the Finnish troops to halt their advance where the Soviets had built their permanent line of fortifications to the north-west from Leningrad. The Finnish Air Force was restricted not to extend its operations farther than 10 km ahead of the frontline, and never bombed the city. At the time, the Finnish artillery pieces had no more than 17.5 kilometers as their maximum range, which could not nearly reach the built area of Leningrad at all.
Finns were well aware of the wintertime ice road across Lake Ladoga that kept up logistics to Leningrad. Finnish combat engineers had the skills of drilling ice and planting explosives, to be simultaneously exploded to form huge holes in the middle - in the Winter War, plenty of Soviet tanks were sunk in lakes using this method. Any convoys of trucks to and from Leningrad could also have been sent to the bottom of Ladoga the same way, but there were standing orders to refrain from it.
Soviets sent some 120,000 additional soldiers to reinforce the military defense of the starving city during 1942, instead of a corresponding tonnage of food. But Finns did not wish to touch Leningrad even with a long stick, contrary to the repeated requests of Germans. There was severe shortage of food also in Finland in the winter of 1941-42, so the collapse of Leningrad with roughly the same population as all of Finland would have caused a huge humanitarian catastrophe - Finland had simply no means of feeding extra millions. The Finnish Supreme Commander, Marshal Mannerheim, politely but firmly declined all German repeated requests of joining their attack against the city, leaving it all to the Germans to deal with it, as destroying Leningrad was not a goal of war for Finland. The Soviets also noticed this, and could then concentrate their troops against the Germans on the southern side of the city.
Finland did not take part in the siege of leningrad
What does this have to do with the winter war? - Finn
Right, I guess Finlandis a bit of a difficult subject through history, unless you read up a bit on history, & look a bit further then the last 100 years.. What's abit confusing is that present day Finland is derived from the Grand Duchy of Finland, which is territory split away from Sweden in 1809, to be ruled as a sort of independent realm under the Russian Tzar, while keeping it's own laws, & mostly having it's own governing bodies... Ie, it was eastern Sweden, under a new/different monarch. Before that, it was considered part of the core of Sweden, so you will have to look at Swedish military history to find Finlands military history before that, which will include all those wars wars with Russia/Muscovy/Novgorod, Denmark, Poland etc. The Swedish militay traditions is considered to be the orgin of what becomes the Preussian tradition btw. Btw, after the Cold War, the military connections between Finland & Sweden have been growing considerably, & now with both being part of NATO, those relations seems to be evolving further eaven more rapidly.. From a Russian/Muscovite perspective, this must ofcourse seem a bit like a nightmare; the old arch enemy, Sweden, is reborn, & with the rapid development of relations both inbetween the Nordic countries, & the Nordics & the Baltics (NB8), in a massively boosted version.. like the wounded Swedish lion comes back transformed into a Griffin.. Hundreds of years of efforts from the Russian/Muscovite side waisted.. & btw, if you look at the Finnish Coat of Arms, the Finnish lion is standing on a Russian/Muscovite Saber.. The Finns know their Muscovite negighbours, not just from the last 100 years of conflict.. the conflict has more like a milennia of background..🧐 in
There is a degree of commonality of culture and civic as well as military tradition because of long mutual medieval history with Sweden, but Finland is not just an accident of history split off from Sweden one day and just given autonomy by Russia, but a nation state with its own identity, its own ancient language unrelated to Swedish or Russian.
To us Finns saying that Finland is fundamentally just a former part of Sweden sounds like what I imagine it would sound to Hungarians if someone suggested they are just austrians with confused identity.
The majority group of Finland is neither Swedish nor Russian, but Finnish.
France and the UK wanted to send troops to Finland via Sweden from Norway, but the Swedish government declined passage. The Baltic route via sea was blocked by Germany.
Sweden let the Germans transport their country.
It's doubtful if they would've actually ever come to Finland in any meaningful scale, and would've rather blocked German Iron imports.
1) given 110.000 lakes, endless swamps and forests, tanks and APC can only operate in very limited areas
2) the Finnish towed artillery and mortar arsenal is larger than US. Less rockets and SPAs. Again, counter battery fire is hard as there are endless places to hide guns
3) Finland would be vastly harder to conquer than Ukraine, even alone
4) Finnish navy is emphasizing mine laying and missile boats
Also, not just bicycles, but skis for everyone and then some
Dogs bark. That's a total no no for stealth. Skis are for the silent assassins. Those dog sled teams are really just for show or recon of your own areas. Even with that, barking is a problem.
Finnish military fits the terrain. Lot's of swamps, rivers, ponds and lakes, tons of forests, some rocks and cliffs. It's mostly suboptiomal terrain for heavy tank warfare. Russian side of the border is even worse and there's only a handful of supply corridors. There's hills, not mountains, on the eastern border. Hence the large amount of mortars which can hide behind hills and shoot using steep angle. Towed artillery teams are trained to be agile and mobile, shoot and scoot type, so those D-30s are a bit like extended range low angle mortars.
And what NATO needs to provide for Eastern European countries is aerial and naval support, missiles and rocket artillery, that can be moved to theatre instantly (is there) but also supply, training of new forces (from own population), equipment manufacturing and reserves for longer warfare (isn't adequate). While it makes no sense to keep stockpiles that just rust away the production capability and production supply chains must be ready. This also concerns civilian infrastructure because of Russian terror tactics.
“How do we help…” You sound like the Bundeswehr General Staff.
the umpteeth time this topic is discussed by foreigners
that gave a shit about us before the ukraine war.
Please continue giving a shit. I want my peace a quiet back ;)
Please do a piece on the New Zealand defense force, which you will find is Pathetic...... but what people want to know is what would be a could defense policy strategy for this island nation.
I say this because many NATO coutry's counts 'other paymens/costs' on them military budjet.
Example finnish border guard system are not part of them military budjet, its have totaly own budjet, it belongs ministry of the interior below. Still border guards have atleast basic finnish army backround or more.
And either finnish icebreakers budjet does not belong same budjet with the army budjet, icebreakers have own budjet.
Etc...
Enemy is allways coming in east. And paris peace treaty have limit navy. And now is coming new corvetts. And same treaty have limits fighters amout and banned bombers.
A comment on the Swastika, while it is cultural the reason the Finnish Air Force used them is because they were donated by Eric Von Rosen - a Swedish count. Von Rosen was an ardent national socialist and Goering’s brother in law.
Interesting. I'll look into this. I'm under the impression that far more Swedes were Nazis than anyone wishes to acknowledge.
There's the Swedish count who was the source of the 1918 blue swastika of the Finnish Air Force and who later became a nazi. And then there's the Finnish painter Akseli Gallen-Kallela who was an important figure in the creation of Finnish national identity. The frame of Gallen-Kallela's 1889 Aino Triptych is filled with swastikas. In 1918 he designed the Order of the Cross of Liberty's insignia with a "fylfot" swastika. That's the one on the flag of the President of Finland.
Suomen rocks...
6:11 pic Keitel, some Air force Colonel and 🇫🇮President Risto Ryti
Germany has a bad reputation and everybody knows Germany’s lack of capabilities.
6:11 Iron Cross. Medal’s are given when foreign Power’s meet.. even today😂. Ww1 Mannerheim fought against German’s and got from bravery St George Yes that Putin ❤ black /orange cloth medal😂 . Sept 1944- all German Medal’s where not used
What enabled the Finns to end the winter war on favorable was that they didn't receive (meaningful) western help. Therefore, they weren't dependend on others to fight on.
The Finnish military and overall defence concept is pretty much the same Switzerland had up into the 1990s. It's not a cheap, but a cost-efficient and highly effective defence system.
Rubbish. Finland didnt end the war favourable apart from not getting conquered.
The war material was spent, manpower exhausted.
They just bluffed Russians about what they had left and Stalin was getting nervous about Hitler and wanted to end the war.
Being alone in a war is not a positive trait.
Dont fool yourself.
I'm still curious how soldiers with 6 months training would perform in combat. I think their platoon leaders and platoon squad and platoon sergeants only have 11 months training? I remember reading the Swedish (who had a similar militia model during the cold war) considered the Finnish training times insufficient.
Many of the troops who hit DDay beaches and fought in NW Europe only had 6 months training and they acquitted themselves.
It's a good question.
basic training in US army is 10 weeks, so 6 months for basic soldier should be enough, for some more complex combat roles training time is bit longer.
It is true that finnish troops rely on specialization. The signal troops are only good at comms, engineer at counter mobility and mobility etc. The training is highly dense due to small overall time to train, loping around has been cut to bare minimum.
also you have to remember that most of the enemy forces are not any better either, you can just look at Ukraine conflict as see what are the training levels there so i think Finnish system is totally fine for reserve troops.
Sissiu? Great movie...
I haven't seen it.
@michaelshurkin613 it's kind of a Finnish resiouvr dogs. A bit OTT... my spellings not the greatest...