Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

Panzer I was used until 1942... but since only 30 of that version were made it seems low prio. A real Panzer I would be a different matter.

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

hmm only 30 is that enough for being in FH ?

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

Probably not unless they just modify a Panzer I model they have laying around somewhere.

Panzer 35t, Panzer I, SiG guns, etc.. there's lots of cool early war stuff that would be good for Poland. I'd like to see some more Polish tanks or tankettes as well.

EDIT:

Found picture of the M/28-30 Pyrskiova Finnish rifle -
http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/...es/finn.j1.jpg

It's a Mosin with 1 or 2 changes.

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

Wouldn't want to hijack his thread like a certain other finn... I'll make a new and so we can revel at Polish armor!
Edit: too tired right now..

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

:wtf::Censored::furious:

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

I think FH needs a 1940 Karelia map too, all they have to do is toggle the post-1940 weapons and add snow...

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

Learn some things before you go around talking about stuff you have no idea of.

Lenin gave Finland "freedom" from the control of the Soviet Union. Several decades later, they (USSR) wanted to expand thier border to have more buffer between the border and thier cities, so they offered Finland some land elsewhere in exchange for that particular buffer zone. The Finns refused, so USSR attacked.

Yes, USSR had heavy losses because they didn't expect Finns to cause that much resistance and USSR thought they could just walk over them, which turned to be a very costly mistake. Nonetheless, the USSR got the extra buffer zone they wanted, which was the cause of the conflict in the first case, and since USSR had no intentions of conquering Finland, they left.

Saying that USSR was beaten by Finland is same as saying that USA was beaten by Germans on the Omaha beach. In both cases the invading force had very high casualties because they attacked a well defended position, but at the end of the day, in both situations, the invading force got what they wanted (US overran the beach, USSR got the extra buffer zone).

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

Yes, let's do that.

That is simply not correct, though often presented. Lenin didn't give us anything, we took our independence. It was only afterwards that Lenin acknowledged our independence, as he calculated that Finland would later join Soviet Union anyhow. But you don't say that the Brits gave the Americans independence just because they aknowledged it afterwards.

On paper Finland lost the war, that's undebatable. But Soviet goals in 1939 were not restricted to a few patches of land to secure Leningrad. Their one and only objective in the war was to annex Finland - march to Helsinki in no more than 2 weeks, hold a massive victory parade and install a communist puppet government that would then "voluntarily" join Finland to Soviet Union. In that they failed. They won the war, but they didn't get what they were after. You could argue that they could have eventually overwhelmed us and conquer the country, but well, they didn't. We lost a lot of territory, but we won our independence.

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

HydraSlav, don't stick your nose into stuff you know nothing about. And if you do, please be more polite to people even if they exaggerate stuff. Now Rikupsoni is finnish, and he might have a chance of knowing something about that? It's quite accepted that the Soviets were going to invade Finland, the demands were only a way to make the attack more acceptable. You might have noticed what happened to the Baltic countries?

Poor leadership due to cleanings in the Red Army before the war was one reason to terrible failure, but certainly not the only one, and the army was improved with some results. The Finnish army in the Winter War was very badly equipped and shouldn't have had a chance, but wars usually doesn't end as they were meant to. It was improved and was better in the Continuation War where the equipment was almost as good as that of the Soviets, sometimes even better. Manpower was increased by allowing politically unreliable elements (socialists) to join the army, but still it wasn't enough to counter the millions of men the Soviets could put up against them in the end of the war.
Peace was the only real alternative, Finland could maybe have kept the Soviets away till the Germans surrended, but fighting the entire Red Army wouldn't have been possible for a longer amount of time. (There should be a reason the Red Army in the end of ww2 has been called the most powerful army in the world.) Bad peace was better than occupation.

I agree with Exel.
The independence procedure could be debated, but I will stay out of this this time, except a few words.
Lenin and the rest of the bolsheviks had a civil war to concentrate on, so he thought probably that it would be easier to give areas like Finland independence, and he seems to have believed in a world revolution at that time. We declared ourselves independent, so he didn't give it to us, he might have if he had have the opportunity, but I don't know that much about that.


Btw, why should Finland be forgotten?

Forgive me if I have been stupid, it's too hot here.

Re: Add this stuff to Karelia
 

I mean I would like to see continued development of the Finnish but seeing how it would be at the expense of the other five large and delay the French and Italians even more...