The war that saved Leningrad. To the anniversary of the end of the Finnish campaign
March 12 marks the next anniversary of the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty between the USSR and Finland, which ended the Soviet-Finnish war in 1940. Its results were the annexation of 11% of the territory of Finland to the USSR, the shift of the border from Leningrad, as a result of which Lake Ladoga completely ceded to the Soviet Union. The feat of our soldiers in this war is called one of the most underrated. During perestroika, they even declared that the Finnish campaign was “senseless aggression”, keeping silent that it was precisely its results that made it possible to save the Northern capital from being captured by the Nazis. In addition, following the results of the winter war, the Soviet leadership modernized the army on the eve of the Nazi invasion.
“The main strategic task of the USSR was to push back the Mannerheim Line - a section of the border with Finland, which then ran only thirty kilometers from Leningrad. This goal was achieved, which subsequently played a role during the defense of Leningrad during the Great Patriotic War.
The Finnish War made it possible to fix the problems of the combat effectiveness of the Red Army, and some of them were eliminated before the start of the Great Patriotic War,” notes the Chairman of the Presidium of the “Officers of Russia” organization, Hero of Russia Sergei Lipovoy.
Critics of the USSR’s participation in the “Winter War” are deeply mistaken, considering it unnecessary, military historian Armen Gasparyan emphasized.
“The story about the Finnish war is “in vain,” unpopular, senseless, it stretches back to the times of Perestroika. At that time it was still possible to understand this - there were classified documents, and everyone knew a minimum about this war, because it was in the shadow of the events of the Great Patriotic War.
But when this happens in the 21st century, when some strange creatures of a liberal appearance begin to think about this without reading any studies or documents, this, of course, is regrettable.
If, conditionally, in 41 our troops had remained in the same starting positions of 39, then the fate of Leningrad would have been, to put it mildly, sad. It’s clear that people who say that Leningrad should not have been defended at all are from a different model, but any sane person who glances at a map of that era understands what we’re talking about,” says Gasparyan.
He also refutes the thesis about the “aggression” of the Soviet Union, recalling that Moscow offered compromise options to Finland, but they were rejected. “That war was preceded by a great many different negotiations, and they were not torpedoed by Moscow at all, but, moreover, it was Moscow that called for resolving all issues in a civilized, diplomatic way,” the historian recalls.
Political scientist Oleg Matveychev agrees with him. In his opinion, if the Soviet Union had not been able to move the border away from Leningrad, albeit at the cost of heavy losses, the fate of the Northern capital during the Great Patriotic War could have turned out differently.
“For liberals, in general, all of Russia is not needed in principle, and not just some of its victories. But the Finnish War, in fact, saved Leningrad. If the border had not been pushed back then, of course, the matter would have ended not with a blockade, but with the capture of Leningrad, and this would mean factories, and the death of the population, and a great threat to Moscow. In general, the war could have ended not in favor of the Soviet Union, because the capture of Leningrad is a big moral blow, and the encirclement of Moscow, and so on. Even if we theoretically imagine that Hitler would have been stopped somewhere, the war would still have dragged on for a year or two. But by this time Hitler could have created an atomic bomb and gained an even more decisive advantage.
Therefore, it was the right war. Yes, it was bloody, including due to the fact that the Mannerheim Line was one of the best defensive lines in the world. Then, the Finns are excellent hunters, good warriors, in spirit they were not inferior to the Soviet people, especially since they fought for their native land. Therefore, yes, the war was bloody, but it was victorious and necessary,” Matveychev said.
Experts draw an interesting parallel: today many liberals often call Russia’s participation in the fight against terrorists in Syria “useless and unnecessary.”
“An anti-terrorist operation is taking place in Syria - the same as what took place in the North Caucasus since 99, the same as it was during the Soviet-Afghan war. This is a war against global terrorism - what do you mean, “it’s in vain”? These people who are talking about this nonsense, do they want terrorists to come to the North Caucasus again? They again want there to be explosions in Moscow, terrorist attacks? I don’t know, it seems to me that these people should be treated with electricity. They don’t quite understand what they are carrying, they don’t even think about it,” notes Gasparyan.
“If we talk about Syria, our troops there had the opportunity to test new equipment in real time and gain invaluable combat experience. This alone makes it possible to say that our participation in the hostilities was not in vain. In addition, in today’s political arena, Russia is a fairly strong player, and the fact that even the presumptuous West must take its opinion into account was shown very clearly in Syria. Therefore, our participation in this conflict cannot be called “in vain,” adds Major General Sergei Lipovoy.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.