"Russian Speaking Forces have Wanted Karelia and Finland for Seven Hundred Years. WWII: Defence of Leningrad: The Greatest Opportunity in History for Imperial Soviet Expansionism"

Between 1939 and 1944, Finland was a friend of the Leningrad people.

This page takes an alternative position regarding the validity of Stalin's reason for requiring Karelia and the Baltic states for the security of Leningrad. "Sorry Finnsky, but we want your land." Besides the fact that Khrushchev (and in this case he was actually telling the truth!) had already confirmed that Stalin wanted all of Finland, we know the following:

The reason for Russia's attack on Finland was like Swiss cheese.

"The only great power which could have earlier been a potential threat to Leningrad - well, in that case presumably along the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland - namely Germany, has concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, which means that there exists no threat against the Soviet Union and Leningrad from there - without considering the overall present importance of Leningrad to the Soviet Union. And the new Soviet naval and air bases in Liepaja (Libau), Ventpils (Windau), Hiiumaa, Saaremaa and Paldiski permit, as disclosed by the Soviets, the Soviet Union to rule the Baltic Sea and thus the Gulf of Finland and up to the Gulf's farthest recess in front of Leningrad.

A request for negotiations with the Soviet government was received on the 5th of October. For over a month friendly discussions were carried out between the Finnish and Soviet Cabinets concerning concrete political issues of certain territorial exchanges to "improve the security of Leningrad."

Judging from the present facts, all arguments about threats to Leningrad from the Finnish territory are very difficult to understand." Prime Minister A.K. Cajander on the 23rd of November 1939, at Helsinki Fair Hall

Stalin Defending Leningrad

Points to consider:

1) The Russian attack on Finland in 1939 and again in 1944 was unnecessary for the protection of Leningrad as Stalin stated based on available evidence. But there are people today who would rather believe a lie than the truth, for political reasons. For example, President Putin has always "believed" that the Soviets never invaded anyone. They were either defending themselves or were asked to enter a country, such as the Baltic States. We know this is rubbish; even the United States never recognized it, even though they were allies, and US historians often like to state the Soviet version.

There was never evidence or reason for suspecting Finland making any war plans with Hitler the way Russia did with same. Certainly Hitler was looking at Finland as a staging area in the north, not near Leningrad. Activities in northern Finland by the Germans were under way during a time when the Germans and the Russians were allies. Later, when Germany attacked Russia, the Germans fought the Russians in the north. Neither the Russians, nor the Germans were very efficient in the Finnish forests. That is why it is stupid to think that the Germans could invade Russia via Finland. Their mechanized armies would grind to as swift a halt as Stalin's.
2) The idea that neutral Finland would attack Leningrad was absurd.
3) The "threat to Leningrad" was only theoretical, a red herring, part of Stalin's overall plan to control the Baltic by annexing Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which he thought belonged to the Soviet sphere of influence. Like the charges against the millions of Stalin's victims, it was a bogus accusation.
4) All the Red Army sacrifices and territorial gains of 1939-40 were wiped out in 1941 in several weeks by Finnish forces who took back land that was theirs in the first place. Taking back Karelia was just. If Finland broke a treaty made under duress, it was because of necessity, and Soviets broke Baltic treaties first anyway. Apparently Roosevelt and Churchill did not agree now that they had joined Stalin.
5) A threat of attack accross the Finnish-Russian border only existed from the Russian side in 1939, because of the Russian-German treaty. If there was a threat from Germany through Finland, Germany would have attacked Russia from Finland during the Winter War or Operation Barbarossa. This did not happen. Furthermore, if Finland wanted to attack Leningrad with Germany, which it didn't, there would be no need for Germany to enter Finland. Finland was not involved in the Leningrad siege. But Russia was involved in the Vyborg siege, just across the border in Finland.
6) Finland never posed a threat to Leningrad even when it was in its power to do so in 1941- 44. Especially when it was under siege by Hitler, Finland kept the Murmansk food supply line to Leningrad open, thereby proving that no threat existed from Finland. Despite evidence to the contrary, the Allies insisted that such a threat existed as per Stalin's insistance, even labelling Finland as a Fascist country - a serious error, the consequence of which was born by Finland. Many history maps still show Leningrad being attacked from the South by Germany, and from the Karelian Isthmus by Finns, which is false.
This resulted in the wrongful, sanctioned loss of Karelia to the Soviet Union in 1944, an act of great immorality against the gallant Finnish people. The reason for these mistakes by Churchill and Roosevelt was lack of first-hand information about the Finns, (much of which he got via Stalin), Baltic countries, Soviet Union and Stalin, Eastern European people, their histories, and not understanding or believing in the threat of Communism and its stated goals of world domination, and signing a treaty which precluded the signing of a separate peace. Because of the Treaty, even though England and the United States had wanted to take Finland out of the war in 1943, it could not happen. This forced Finland to take aid from the only source available. How is it that Stalin's will prevailed over the combined will of Churchill and Roosevelt?
7) Stalin and Hitler's motives in 1939 were simply to acquire as much land as possible, plain to anyone with common sense, (lacking in many government leaders as usual) and once begun in Finland would continue (based on evidence from the Baltic states) until the whole country was annexed, as per Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev's testimony after the war. To get his way, Stalin used all means, including lying, which is sanctioned by communist doctrin, to achieve his goals. Therefore, if Stalin says he wants a little piece, wouldn't it be normal for him to be lying? There was no evidence that Stalin would deal with Finland any differently than the Baltics earlier in the year, which were tricked into giving up their independence. (Isn't trickery the usual method of conquest. Just look at the American Indians)
Some of the reasons the Russians have come up with to rationalize annexing Karelia:
    1) The boarder is too close to Leningrad: defensive requirements.
    2) Viipuri (Vyborg) is an old Russian city occupied by the Finns.
    3) They are attacking Finland in order to help the Finnish people.
    4) Finland is really a part of Russia.
    5) Finland is a Fascist country.
    6) Karelia is a Russian province.
    7) More access to the Baltic.

    Suomi Beauty - in 1939 Stalin told the Finns that he was coming to "Liberate" them from the lying capitalists - in this song.
8) The validity of Stalin's actions against Finland should be examined in context of the other things he was doing against freedom and democracy: instituting slave labor, murdering millions of people, using extreme brutality in dealing with people of countries annexed prior to and after attacking Finland. Also, after the Winter War, Stalin was not satisfied with the territory he acquired, he almost immediately resumed his territorial demands, now he wanted Petsamo too, plus many other concessions.
9) Russia paid for attacking Finland with operation Barbarossa, which was a direct result of Russia's poor showing in the Winter War against Finland.

10) The demand for land by Hitler and Stalin were analogous in their motives, coordinated in timing, and both had no legitimate, moral basis whatsoever.
11) Countries that complied with Stalin's requests ceased to exist.
12) On these basis, Finland made the correct decision to resist the same evil that overcame the Baltic countries, while Churchill and Roosevelt succumbed to Stalin's reptilian spell and willingly gave up Eastern Europe to the shackles of communism, a cold-blooded thing to do.

How lucky can you get. You are trying to take over the world, and you get assistance from England and the United States. That is ideal.

The Result of Churchill and Roosevelt's policies:

13) The attitude of both Churchill and Roosevelt in the 1939 Soviet attack was sympathetic towards Finland. When they joined Stalin against Germany, this changed into taking Stalin's point of view. Churchill and Roosevelt, unfortunately let the fox into the henhouse in their zeal to destroy Hitler, which blinded them to Stalin's real motives. Roosevelt in particular projected onto Stalin, qualities he did not have, dispite all evidence to the contrary. He was fascinated by what made Russia tick, and thought that they had found a better way - where the people work for the betterment of the state, not themselves. There was no excuse for this ignorant behavior - Stalin's murder of millions of people and his slavery system was common knowledge. Too late, he snapped out of his delusions and realized the truth. If American land was at stake, he would have lost it.
14) Roosevelt's illusions: Roosevelt did not take the time to understand what Stalin meant by "democracy," until it was too late when Russian intentions in Poland and Eastern Europe could no longer be overlooked. (History of WWII, 1974, AJP Taylor and SL Mayer, pg 215) Too late to do homework when Russians were pouring into, and ravaging, eastern Europe and Karelia. Once in, the only way to get them out is by force, and the will of the two aging, tired leaders was not there to begin another war.

The whole thing was all a big mistake, a misunderstanding, that Stalin played to the hilt! The naive Roosevelt thought Stalin stood for some undefined type of democracy, a new world order and peace forever! The American people were unfortunately mislead to believing in Stalin by listening to gullible (From gull, the seabird considered to be stupid; sorry guy.) Roosevelt. The claims that the world had been made safe for democracy was a half-truth. They had "won." But they had only made the world safe from Hitler and fascism, but not communism which was equally dangerous to freedom as the post war world demonstrated. Roosevelt had given a new deal to Eastern Europe and Finland.
15) A good moral case exists for the return of Karelia to Finland, similar to the unification of East and West Germanies. Popular opinion is split on this issue in Finland but gaining sympathy; Karjalan Liitto and ProKarelia are persuing this peacefully.
16) Roosevelt poured Lend-Lease supplies to Stalin even after it was apparent Hitler had lost, and the massive supplies of weapons were being pointed at Eastern Europeans, Baltic people and Karelians, and finally the United States Army. There was no need to expect acknowledgement, return or payment of lent equipment either. Nor were the Russian people told of the massive aid.

17) Since England was at war with Finland, Churchill should have told Stalin in 1944 to back off and restore the 1939 borders instead of allowing Stalin to annex Karelia, since there was no longer a threat to Leningrad. Churchill asked Stalin if he would consider an American brokered separate peace with Finland, which was ofcourse turned down by the dictator. American and British radio propaganda campaigns tried to drum into the Finns that they were "not, after all, fighting for but against democracy." in solidarity with Stalin. (Consistant with the fact that Roosevelt thought Stalin stood for "a type of democracy," and explaining this baffling assistance to the bolsheviks in annexing neighbouring states and provinces - resulting in the biggest disaster to democracy and freedom of the 20th Century.) It also resulted in a hatred of Russia by Russia's neighbours that surpasses any seen in this the 20th century. That Russia is now being helped by the west to rearm is seen by those who were under their yoke as a continuation of the aid that helped Russia enslave them.

The policies of Churchill and Roosevelt failed to make the world safe for democracy, and correct the injustices of aggression in Europe because they strengthened Stalin's position so greatly with the Lend-Lease plan. Because of this strength, he was in a good position when he showed his true colors, to exercise preemptive maneuvers for control in Eastern Europe and Karelia. Churchill and Roosevelt had played into Stalin's hands; it was "checkmate." It is regretful that history has to cast such a shadow on these great statesmen, but that was their own doing - and they must accept responsibility. The world owes the American, Canadian and British people alot, this is true. But to whom do the Karelians, Baltic States and Eastern Europe owe their fates?

In 1939 Hitler and Stalin divided Europe between themselves, like it was some kind of loot. In 1945 Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin carved up Europe in much the same cold-blooded way in the final chapter. Three men, determining the fates of millions, with no input from the people affected. Does this sound a bit too harsh? There are people, I assure you, who believe it is not harsh enough. Before the war, there was a Europe made up of free countries. And a Soviet Union made of unwilling vestiges of Czarist Russia. After the war there was a divided Europe, of which only the west half was free, and dozens of little countries, like Chechnya, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and so on, still trapped as colonial states in the Soviet Union. Eastern Europe went as war spoils to brutal Stalin and his "sphere of communist influence," while western Europe came under the control of gentle democracy. This was agreed upon and signed by the Big Three, not separate treaties. Sour grapes, and the feeling of having been tricked, came afterwards.

Therefore, the United States and Britain are morally bound to try make things better. Aid to Russia, which began during WWII, and terminated afterwards, has been resumed! Military spending by Russia has doubled in 1999 under President Clinton.

Churchill and Roosevelt realized finally that perhaps the Finns were right about Stalin. (T.S. Elliot's poem "The Hollow Men," describes men who became incapable of positive action. "We are the hollow men - we are the stuffed men..." Mr. Kurtz, he dead...a reference at the beginning of the poem to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness - how the African jungle succumbs victims to its evil. Is this what happened to Roosevelt? Perhaps they should have spent more time listening to other points of view - not just Stalin's. They could have talked to a few Poles, Estonians, Finns, Hungarians and so on, before they decided on the future of Europe. Perhaps they didn't want to "offend" Stalin. Instead they listened to and were mouthpieces for the cunning murdering liar - Stalin. It is important that the world remembers Stalin for what he was, a beast, not the savior of anything. If there is any glory to come out of this, it is for the innocent Russian people who were slaughtered by Hitler and even more by Stalin's orders. Both the Holocaust and the Purges should be denounced and the war criminals exposed together. But pound for pound Stalin was worse because he killed more people.

The Hollow Men
Elliot, Thomas Stearns (1888-1965)

A penny for the Old Guy


We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us--if at all--not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.


Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.

Let me be no nearer
In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer--

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom


This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.

Is it like this
In death's other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.


The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
and avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.


Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
and the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Index | Main/Uralic | WW II | Books/Videos | Kalevala | Sauna | Linklist | Music | Early Finnish history| Finno-ugric people | Science | Cold Fusion | Finnish products | WW II photo gallery