I had a collision with a Russian in another thread a while ago, so let's continue it here, shall we.

Completely agree with Russians! Russians are just too afraid of Chinese people in Siberia. If they can overcome that anxiety, Russia and China shall have more cooperation.

Yeah! Just because China has a over a billion people, a booming economy and dreams of world power and Russia has a declining population combined with the world longest border and one of the last undeveloped resource rich lands, that is no reason to be anxious.

Yeah! Europe and America, those are the people Russia needs to be watching.

The USSR had only itself to blame on account
of its aggression of the 1939-40 Winter War for
Finnish participation on WW2. From what I know,
Finnish military action was limited to regaining
territory siezed by the USSR in 1940.

Had Finland done more it is possible that Murmansk
would have fallen as well as Leningrad, with dire
consequences since Murmansk was the primary
Lend-Lease terminus throughout the war.

Had Finland remained neutral and had it refused
German transit in the north ( a big "if"- Sweden
was pressured into allowing transit, and the Finns
might also have given in), then the USSR's position
in its northwest sector would have been vastly improved.

The allegations that Germany and German military
forces might be seen in a postitive light in Finland
today concerns me.

Nazi Germany should never be viewed in any light other
than completely depraved.

Also, from a practical view a Democratic Germany in 1939
might easliy have joined with several other sympathetic
powers to forestall USSR aggression against Finland, or to repel it

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord, deliver us.

I thought everybody knew the Finns were not fighting the Soviet Union in 1941-44 because of Nazi ideas. Finland was a democracy fighting to regain territory seized from it by the communistic Soviet Union in the war of 1939-40. As a matter of fact, it was the Soviet Union who started the aggression in 1941 by bombing Finland.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Well, I may sound cynical here, but I don't think anybody in WWII was fighting Germany because of the Nazi ideas. It was just about gaining lost territories, getting rid of occupation (Poland), not being occupied (UK) etc.

Of course, you may argue that the "Lebensraum" idea and the Superiority of the German Race were all Nazi concepts - but of course, we all understand what is meant here : antisemitism, racism, fascism, Führerprinzip ...

__________________
______________________Own only what you can always carry with you: know languages, know countries, know people. Let your memory be your travel bag.”___________________Alexander Solzhenitsyn

As far as they were informed of them I believe the leaders
and people of France and the UK were hostile to Nazi ideas,
although this by itself this was not the cause of the war.

It was Poland which was actually defending itself against attack.
France and the UK did not enter the war on 9/3/39 either to regain
lost territory, or to prevent being occupied themselves. They did
so because they viewed unceasing expansion of Nazi Germany as
ultimately threatening to their own interests. I also think revulsion
against the conquest of weak countires by more powerful ones
was a factor.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord, deliver us.

That may very well be true, for most Poles, French, and Brits.

However, this is a different issue than the issue on why certain countries chose to join the German side of the war. Italy and Hungary joined Germany because these countries had leaders with ideologies close to that of Nazi-Germany. Finland joined Germany to get a chance to win territory back from the Soviet Union, but nobody in the Finnish leadership were close to being Nazi.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

The Russians have always been more Eastern than Western.

Today is the Finnish Independence Day (est. 1917). There were some problems in our thinking in 1930s. There are Finnish speaking people (Karelians) just east of our border and there were some right-wing people in Finland who were dreaming to extend Finland to those areas, too. Maybe those ideas came up again 1942-44 when the Finnish Army had taken all the territories back which were taken in the Winter War (1939-40). Some politicians may have imagined that Germany will win the war and Finland can gain some areas in that occassion.

However, primarily Finland was fighting for its independence and asked help from many directions - only Germany helped. When the Soviet Army attacked Finland they had most modern US made artillery and even US made food. All those soldiers which crossed the Finnish border were carried back. And Finland was veru badly mistreated in the peace negotiations afterwards - we had to pay repetition ... huge amount of everything to USSR and western countries (incl. USA). This was only because of receiving help from Germany.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Karelia was a province of Finland prior to the Winter War.

You are partly right. The Karelian (Finnish speaking) people have lived both in Finland and in Russia for ages. When Finland got its independence from Russia 1917 Karelia was split (Finnish Karelia and Karelian Autonomic State of USSR). Actually the whole Russia is full of Finnish-related people (Fenno-Ugrians). In the Winter War the USSR took part of Finnish territory and the Karelians from that area moved to Finland - returned back home 1943 again and had to leave again. Soviet Army did not ever cross the Finnish border but we lost in peace negotiations as the whole western world was against us and gave free hands to USSR to rob us. Now Finland is according to several international statistics "best in the world" in many sectors (education, innovation, IT, corruption, social services, equality, environmental protection, liberty of media, etc).

You are quite right.
Karelia was part of Finland, its capital was Viipuri, or Vyborg.
Some regions, as the Eastern Karelia was under Soviet rule. These regions were the ones some Finns wanted to claim in the continuos war.

Also,

As I understand it, there were actually three seperate parts to WWII for Finland:

The initial Soviet attack (The Winter War), followed by Finland's alliance with Germany to regain its territory, followed by ther final stage where the Soviets used the Finnish Army as a proxy to drive-out remnants of the Wermacht.

Is that more or less correct?

Also, is Mannerheim today seen in Finland the way the textbooks portray him: George Washington and Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce rolled into one man?

And what happened in the Baltic States during that time?

I once read there was a guerilla war in Estonia, while Latvia and Lithuania were more willing to support the Germans.

Sound correct, or is that just the American take on things?

I am impressed. It is rare that U.S. folk know too much about Our wars.

Slightly wrong, mostly right.
Beginning for Finlands participation was the "Winter war", right after the Baltic nations were occupied.

Next stage was the "Continuous War" where we allowed Germans to try and assault via Lappland. Finns knew full well that they could not advance in such conditions.. Finland was not an ally, but tied up to Germans because they sold material and grain. They wanted more than Finns were willing to do. Siege of st. Petersburg is a prime example.
This phace of war ended when Finns were able to repell a massive Soviet assault in Karelian isthamus. Soviet forces were much larger than Allied forces in Normandy..

Last phace was the "Lappland War" Where younger Finnish soldieres were given a ridiculous timetable to drive Germans out. Soviets counted that we could not accomplish the task and thus, give an excuse to bring troops to Lappland. At first Germans retreated as quickly as Finns advanced, but Soviets demanded more blood, since the war seemed to go without casualties. Finns began real assaults and Germans retaliated by burning everything in Lappland to the ground.
Peace was costly. Lappland in ruins, Karelia lost, 440 000 Karelians to re-settle, 365 billion €(in modern money) to be paid to the Aggressor in very little time.

Mannerheim was a man in the right place at the right time. An aristocrat with a long service-record in the Tsars army. He was a true metropolitan considering st. Petersburg his home city. He could not speak fluent finnish, but understood Finnish mind and knew the abilities of his soldiers. He gained fame in the Finnish war of independence and was an old, but able man in the times of war.
Some say that his best ability was to select good men around him and others claim that he also stole the glory of the thoughts and actions of these men. Both are true.
He was the head of the entire Finnish army in four wars and a President after the wars.

Baltics agreed to Soviet demands and gave places where Soviets built military bases. Soon Red Army marched in and claimed the lands. Finns saw it all, and had no illusions of Soviet intentions.
War ravaged over the Baltics, first teh Soviets, then the Germans, then the Soviets again. These days Estonians talk about long occupation, rather than being part of the Soviet union.

Many Latvians and Liethuanians went to war for Germany because they fought against the Soviets. Sad history, these men fought to the end.

Sounds that you know your history very well.