Hello. Me, Vavva, will now in my fourth post tell a story I find really fascinating: The Winter War in 1939.
The Soviet Union had won many a battle in 1939, and did its usual routine when invading smaller countries: Massive numeral advantage... They had won many a battle doing this strategy, and everything looked normal when USSR declared war on the neighbour Finland in 1939. The Soviets wanted some more "buffer land" for one of their greatest cities, Leningrad (St. Petersburg today), and firstly asked, or demanded, some land and a demilitarised zone. The Finnish said no, though it was kind of foolhardy. The Finnish had a quite strong defence, but couldn't measure their forces against this human wave the Soviets were sending.
Finland was a poor nation. After a devastating civil war between communists and anti-communists (popularly called red and white) and oppression from Russian rule for a hundred years, the Finnish economy and army was small. They could force out about 300 000 men, and less than 150 airplanes and tanks. The Russian army outnumbered the Finnish one technologically 1:50 and in numbers 1:5. This was an easy match for the Russians, and all their generals thought so too. But the Finnish wouldn't give up so easily...
The Swedish-Finnish general and field marshal Carl-Gustaf Mannerheim went to work for the last time in 1939. He was old, and wanted a hard-earned retirement when the message shocked him: Finland was at war! Of course, Mannerheim had to command his troops once again and win, or endure, a hopeless war. Much to Mannerheim's dismay, the northern parts of Finland surrenders rapidly. The port bordering the Barents sea, Petsamo, falls the first day, and many surrounding settlements give up soon. Most of the Finnish army was stationed at the Mannerheim line on the land strip between Leningrad and southern Finland, as this was the straightest way to Helsingfors, the capital at the southern coast. But the Russian high general didn't want to go on there. He went for the Finnish endless forests, strangely enough, and declared proudly that "the biggest problem the Russian army will have here is not to go too far and cross the Swedish border". He didn't know he'd get bigger problems than that...
TBC
Please correct me if some dates or numbers are incorrect.
Vavva
tirsdag 15. februar 2011
onsdag 9. februar 2011
1814 - pt. 2
Hello. Vavva here, and here is part 2 of the Norwegian independence story.
Norway hadn't been independent since 1397, and in 1814, Norway had been in an union with Denmark for 434 years. As probably understood, the Norwegians were quite fed up with this, though it wasn't that bad a reign, and wanted independence. As partially mentioned in part 1, the Kiel treaty of January 1814 took away Norway from Danish rule and gave it to Sweden as "punishment" for the Danish support to Napoleon in exchange for lesser territories as a symbolic compensation in Germany.
Norway had been waiting quite a long time for this moment. This was the time to claim Norwegian independence before it was too late and the Swedish union was nailed! Representatives from all over the country came to Eidsvoll, north of Oslo, Norway, and discussed a Norwegian constitution. At the 17th of May, the Norwegian national day, they agreed and declared Norway an independent state.
Of course, the Swedes didn't like this, and declared war on this newly formed state. Now, Norway and its temporary king Christian Frederik was in big trouble. Sweden had experienced troops from the Napoleonic wars, one of France's best marshalls as commander (Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, now known as prince Carl Johan). Norway had newly conscripted peasant-soldiers, green and unexperienced, and few good commanders. They were fewer than the Swedes too, and the Norwegians only had bare luck to trust during this war.
Norwegian troops boarded up all along the Swedish front, or primarily the souther one, along Østfold's Swedish border. Here fights broke out, but not rather decisive ones like in Europe. Those kinds of battle would come in Rakkestad, Østfold, where the Norwegian main army lined up. And a possible Norwegian independence's chance of survival was fought here during the summer of 1814...
...or not. The Norwegians let their senses overcome the courage and glory of a possible victory, and signed a peace treaty with Sweden. Norway became Swedish, though with a looser connection than expected by the Swedes. The Norwegians could have their own constitution (a quite liberal one, by the way), their own Prime Minister, and internal politics were separated in Norwegian and Swedish politics. However, the Swedish kept, as planned by them, foreign policy, trade and diplomacy to themselves. This union lasted for 91 years, and after quarrels over the Norwegian trade fleet sailing under Swedish flags (the Norwegian fleet was amongst the largest in the world at the time) and other issues, the Swedish opened for a referendum over abolishing the union. A great majority voted yes, and the modern Norwegian state was founded in 1905. Maybe, just maybe, 91 years too late, if Rakkestad would've been won...
Please feel free to correct me if some numbers, dates or facts are incorrect.
Vavva
Norway hadn't been independent since 1397, and in 1814, Norway had been in an union with Denmark for 434 years. As probably understood, the Norwegians were quite fed up with this, though it wasn't that bad a reign, and wanted independence. As partially mentioned in part 1, the Kiel treaty of January 1814 took away Norway from Danish rule and gave it to Sweden as "punishment" for the Danish support to Napoleon in exchange for lesser territories as a symbolic compensation in Germany.
Norway had been waiting quite a long time for this moment. This was the time to claim Norwegian independence before it was too late and the Swedish union was nailed! Representatives from all over the country came to Eidsvoll, north of Oslo, Norway, and discussed a Norwegian constitution. At the 17th of May, the Norwegian national day, they agreed and declared Norway an independent state.
Of course, the Swedes didn't like this, and declared war on this newly formed state. Now, Norway and its temporary king Christian Frederik was in big trouble. Sweden had experienced troops from the Napoleonic wars, one of France's best marshalls as commander (Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, now known as prince Carl Johan). Norway had newly conscripted peasant-soldiers, green and unexperienced, and few good commanders. They were fewer than the Swedes too, and the Norwegians only had bare luck to trust during this war.
Norwegian troops boarded up all along the Swedish front, or primarily the souther one, along Østfold's Swedish border. Here fights broke out, but not rather decisive ones like in Europe. Those kinds of battle would come in Rakkestad, Østfold, where the Norwegian main army lined up. And a possible Norwegian independence's chance of survival was fought here during the summer of 1814...
...or not. The Norwegians let their senses overcome the courage and glory of a possible victory, and signed a peace treaty with Sweden. Norway became Swedish, though with a looser connection than expected by the Swedes. The Norwegians could have their own constitution (a quite liberal one, by the way), their own Prime Minister, and internal politics were separated in Norwegian and Swedish politics. However, the Swedish kept, as planned by them, foreign policy, trade and diplomacy to themselves. This union lasted for 91 years, and after quarrels over the Norwegian trade fleet sailing under Swedish flags (the Norwegian fleet was amongst the largest in the world at the time) and other issues, the Swedish opened for a referendum over abolishing the union. A great majority voted yes, and the modern Norwegian state was founded in 1905. Maybe, just maybe, 91 years too late, if Rakkestad would've been won...
Please feel free to correct me if some numbers, dates or facts are incorrect.
Vavva
lørdag 5. februar 2011
1814 - pt. 1
Hello, and welcome to my second post here at VHB. The first dedicated history post will be about 1814 and the temporary Norwegian independence story. A classic story for Norwegians (I am one), and quite fascinating for other people.
The story, or the prologue, begins in Copenhagen 1807. The Napoleonic wars rages, and Denmark (including Norway)'s side in the war is quite undecided, though they favour the French, primarily because the UK (France's nemesis as always) attacked Copenhagen in 1801, but they were still fence riding for some more. The British knew that the Danish trade fleet was one of the largest ones at the time, and the British feared that the French could get their hands on this, or, maybe, the British just wanted it for themselves. As a quite strange act, the British went into the waters outside Copenhagen and simply demanded the Danish fleet. The Danes obviously said no. The British then bombed Copenhagen with fire bombs as the history's first terror bombing until the Danes gave away their fleet. (!)
This clear act of war forced the Danes onto Napoleon's side in the war, not surprising, as the nemesis Sweden was a part of the Coalition (the anti-Napoleonic side).
The other prologue starts two years later, in 1809. Sweden, including Finland at the time, got attacked by the Russians, who conquered Finland in this year. The Swedes just lost an 800-year-old part of the once-great Swedish empire. After the failure in Finland, the Swedish officers did a regular coup d'etat and kicked the Swedish king Gustav VI Adolf. The military dictatorship didn't want to abandon the monarchy, they just wanted another ruler, and the old king was replaced with Carl XIII, the old king's uncle. He was not married, had no brothers or sisters, and was over 60 years old, and everyone knew that he wouldn't have a long time left. The Swedish monarchy was running out of time. They ask around for possible princes. Firstly, a Danish prince is requested, but he dies shortly after the selection. Then, after a long feud I'll probably explain another time, the French marshall Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, one of the best, actually, is chosen as new Swedish throne heir.
Bernadotte realises that Russia is too big an enemy for Sweden to handle to get back Finland, and he gives up taking Finland back. He instead realises the weak nemesis in west, Denmark, and thinks of a plan to get Norway ripped away from them. And yes, this happens, in the treaty of Kiel of 1814, where Denmark gives Norway to Sweden. But the Norwegians have other plans...
TBC
Vavva
The story, or the prologue, begins in Copenhagen 1807. The Napoleonic wars rages, and Denmark (including Norway)'s side in the war is quite undecided, though they favour the French, primarily because the UK (France's nemesis as always) attacked Copenhagen in 1801, but they were still fence riding for some more. The British knew that the Danish trade fleet was one of the largest ones at the time, and the British feared that the French could get their hands on this, or, maybe, the British just wanted it for themselves. As a quite strange act, the British went into the waters outside Copenhagen and simply demanded the Danish fleet. The Danes obviously said no. The British then bombed Copenhagen with fire bombs as the history's first terror bombing until the Danes gave away their fleet. (!)
This clear act of war forced the Danes onto Napoleon's side in the war, not surprising, as the nemesis Sweden was a part of the Coalition (the anti-Napoleonic side).
The other prologue starts two years later, in 1809. Sweden, including Finland at the time, got attacked by the Russians, who conquered Finland in this year. The Swedes just lost an 800-year-old part of the once-great Swedish empire. After the failure in Finland, the Swedish officers did a regular coup d'etat and kicked the Swedish king Gustav VI Adolf. The military dictatorship didn't want to abandon the monarchy, they just wanted another ruler, and the old king was replaced with Carl XIII, the old king's uncle. He was not married, had no brothers or sisters, and was over 60 years old, and everyone knew that he wouldn't have a long time left. The Swedish monarchy was running out of time. They ask around for possible princes. Firstly, a Danish prince is requested, but he dies shortly after the selection. Then, after a long feud I'll probably explain another time, the French marshall Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, one of the best, actually, is chosen as new Swedish throne heir.
Bernadotte realises that Russia is too big an enemy for Sweden to handle to get back Finland, and he gives up taking Finland back. He instead realises the weak nemesis in west, Denmark, and thinks of a plan to get Norway ripped away from them. And yes, this happens, in the treaty of Kiel of 1814, where Denmark gives Norway to Sweden. But the Norwegians have other plans...
TBC
Vavva
tirsdag 1. februar 2011
Introduction
Hello, and welcome to my blog. I, Vavva, made this blog because I like history a lot and I'm tired of generally poor historic knowledge amongst normal people.
My favourite lapse of time through history is 1750-Napoleonic era. At this time in history, conquests and losses may actually be relevant today as many of these states still exist, as it was later too. What separates the time I like, is that war and battles are still somewhat glorious and not just tragic; of course, war and history is tragic, but 1750-NE is so... unsure. For instance, from WW2 we have countless reports of horror and suffering. These werent existing in 1750-NE. There, it was primarily glory and honour. This makes, in addition to the earlier mentioned fact, 1750-NE to the historic era I like the most.
As I see it, there are two problems with modern history writing:
1: It's for interested people only.
2: It's primarily written by Americans.
The first point could be something to work with, as good historians (though I'd probably classify as one today) may accomplish books and other medies that appeal to normal people.
The second "problem" may be harder to do something about. As you may notice by the setting, I'm not American (I'm Norwegian, so my English may not be perfect) , and I'm fed up at American history. 220 years, constantly repeated to the entire world, even though it may not be interested at all. American revolutionary wars, described as if it was an enormous loss in British eyes, Lousiana purchase, of course even more important (or as important as) the Napoleonic wars, war of 1812, the same, American Civil War, quite important, but not an "event of the milennium", 1st and 2nd World War, where the American effort is grossly overestimated. An extra push in WW1, true, and a Japanese frontier in WW2, true, but the European "campaign" USA launched was quite overestimated. As I saw in an American history film, the narrator went over the other nations' efforts at the D-day in one sentence, and then, the American forces met EXTREME resistance and HUGE armies, like the Germans saved everything for the Americans.
In later times, after WW2, USA have done a lot, and I of course appreciate USA, primarily political, but regarding history, I'm tired of the mentioned topic.
Welcome to this blog and my first post here.
Vavva
My favourite lapse of time through history is 1750-Napoleonic era. At this time in history, conquests and losses may actually be relevant today as many of these states still exist, as it was later too. What separates the time I like, is that war and battles are still somewhat glorious and not just tragic; of course, war and history is tragic, but 1750-NE is so... unsure. For instance, from WW2 we have countless reports of horror and suffering. These werent existing in 1750-NE. There, it was primarily glory and honour. This makes, in addition to the earlier mentioned fact, 1750-NE to the historic era I like the most.
As I see it, there are two problems with modern history writing:
1: It's for interested people only.
2: It's primarily written by Americans.
The first point could be something to work with, as good historians (though I'd probably classify as one today) may accomplish books and other medies that appeal to normal people.
The second "problem" may be harder to do something about. As you may notice by the setting, I'm not American (I'm Norwegian, so my English may not be perfect) , and I'm fed up at American history. 220 years, constantly repeated to the entire world, even though it may not be interested at all. American revolutionary wars, described as if it was an enormous loss in British eyes, Lousiana purchase, of course even more important (or as important as) the Napoleonic wars, war of 1812, the same, American Civil War, quite important, but not an "event of the milennium", 1st and 2nd World War, where the American effort is grossly overestimated. An extra push in WW1, true, and a Japanese frontier in WW2, true, but the European "campaign" USA launched was quite overestimated. As I saw in an American history film, the narrator went over the other nations' efforts at the D-day in one sentence, and then, the American forces met EXTREME resistance and HUGE armies, like the Germans saved everything for the Americans.
In later times, after WW2, USA have done a lot, and I of course appreciate USA, primarily political, but regarding history, I'm tired of the mentioned topic.
Welcome to this blog and my first post here.
Vavva
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)