Talk:Co-belligerence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Finland and the Continuation War as an example

[edit] Modifications to the article

Finland had no part in the siege of Leningrad. Removed it.

The chief of the Finnish Government Police (VALPO in Finnish) visited the Theresienstadt concentration camp in 1941. <-- removed for no source.

  1. Germany's supply of much needed nickel from Petsamo and iron from Sweden was critical to the Nazis' ability to prolong the war. <--- removed for having nothing to do with Finland. Seems like USSR propaganda to put it here. (it is true though).

This was after Soviet Union had attacked Finland. <-- added

[edit] Who invaded first?

Finnish offesive started after Soviet Union invaded Finland. <-- added, then removed

(above statement is false, because Finnish ships mined Soviet waters before the Soviet air attacks on June 22. It would have been ok to have said the Finnish LAND INVASION started after the USSR launched air attacks. But in fact the mining operations were offensive actions. Soviet troops did not actually invade Finish territory until later.)

If we want to nitpick, the above statement is true, because Finns mined Soviet (or in fact Estonian) water starting from around 8am when first Soviet air/artillery attacks started already a littla after 6am. :-) Anyway, what both parties did before June 25 was like two schoolboys kicking each other under the table, and finally one of them become open by starting flailing with his fists. Similarily Soviet air offensive was the first open, no return, serious act of war between the countries. --Whiskey 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drive to alliance?

Removed: "The German government was confident of victory and saw no reason to bind its hands with official written treaties and alliances with the various other states which were counted on joining the campaign."

In fact, Hitler was eager to sign more resolutions between Finland and Germany, as shown by the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement of 1944.

But that was 1944. We were talking 1941, when nazis were so confident that they could beat SU by themselves without any support from secondary humans like Finns. When the tide turned against them, the eagerness to tie other nations to them with treaties increased and eagerness of others decreased for obvious reasons.


"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki," in the sense that treaties were signed separate from, and earlier than the treaties with Germany and Italy. But Moscow, in fact, and Russians today, sees the battle with Finnish and German divisions on the Finnish front as part of the greater "Great Patriotic War." However, it is ok to say that Helsinki saw it as a separate war.

So, please explain in what sense Moscow sees it "formally" as a separate war? As you might know, Russia also signed "separate" treaties with other Axis coutnries too, like Bulgaria, which declared war on germany too as the tides turned. (Rakovsky 01:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

I wonder that also. It is understandable that Finns consider it separate, and it is understandable that Russians consider it just a front in GPW. The Moscow Conference (1943) demanded unconditional surrender from axis nations and when both Romania and Bulgaria fronts collapsed and both countries were occupied by Soviet forces, unlike Finland, they could be seen signing surrender unconditionally. Also, both Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were signatories of Tripartite Pact, unlike Finland, so there are some differencies, although I guess the official Soviet point for consider Continuation War separate stems from the necessity to sign less than unconditional peace with Finland at the time. --Whiskey 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Definition of the Co-belligerence

Could someone quote a definition of the word “co-belligerence” (if it exists at all) from an English dictionary? The one in the article does not make sense, at least, in regard to Finland. The article on the Continuation War states “…In this situation, Finland had no alternative but to turn to Germany. From May 1940, Finland pursued a campaign to re-establish the good relations with Germany....”, etc. German troops were deployed in and operated from Finland with the approval of the Finnish government. Doesn’t this mean that the cooperation with Germans was “actively and willfully sought”? This certainly was not a mere coincidence. I understand that Finns view their cooperation with Germany as a necessity, but, since most alliances in politics come from necessity, “co-belligerence” then would apply to virtually any alliance. Wouldn’t a better example for “co-belligerence”, as defined in his article, be the uncoordinated attacks of various barbarians against Rome? Or Turkey, Persia and Sweden fighting Russians at the same time? Also, could someone actually quote a Soviet source that designates Continuation War (by any name) as a separate conflict from the "Great Patriotic War"?

Finally, please sign your posts. --EugeneK 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided a more assertive definition to the co-belligerence and removed lot of weasel words from the intro. Now it is more general and shouldn't be so tied to World War II. --Whiskey 08:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finlands co-belligerence as a euphemism

Why should the term co-belligerence be regarded as a euphemism for alliance? Is co-habitation a euphemism for marriage? There are differing degrees of co-habitation, but it still isn't a marriage if there is no formal association. Citing wartime acts committed by Finland is no more evidence of an alliance than sex acts committed by co-habitators is evidence of marriage. This whole section should be deleted. --Martin

[edit] Germany allowed to recruit from Sweden?

What is the source of the statement that Germany was allowed to recruit from non-belligerent Sweden? AFAIK the Swedish government never allowed this; any Swedish volunteers had to go to Nazi-occupied territories or Finland to enlist. Qazper 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A good short description about Swedish position can be found f.ex. in http://www.germanwarmachine.com/hitlersforeignlegions/neutralsandallies.htm , so it was German embassy and Auslands organization who did the recruitment. Although Swedish government didn't officially sanction this activity, it turned a blind eye to it. --Whiskey 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It was short but not that good. They seem ignorant of the difference between the Hango Battalion and the Svir Company, their numbers of Swedish volunteers are not consistent with modern research (not even close), nor do they give any source to any claim they do.
One Swedish historian, Lars Ericson, who is an acknowledged authority on the subject gives in his book Swedish Volunteers (Svenska Frivilliga, Historiska Media, Lund 1996) the following account (translated and abbreviated by me):
After the opening of Barbarossa the German envoy Schnurre communicated to the Swedish Foreign Secretary Günther the German wish that Swedish volunteers would be allowed to join Wehrmacht. Günther declined on basis of the Swedish neutrality, and stressed that only Finland would be allowed for Swedish volunteers. During July/August 1941 Germany started a clandestine recruitment campaign in Sweden to entice Swedes to join Waffen-SS. This campaign was noticed by Swedish newspapers, which in turn alerted the Swedish government to the problem. September 1 1941 the Foreign Secretary Günther stated that the only applications for foreign military service that would be approved were those concerning the Finnish Army. The reaction in Berlin was very negative: Ribbentrop let the Swedish envoy Richert know that "Sweden failed its historic role at Germany's side in this fateful battle." After this the German clandestine recruitment in Sweden waned to a halt at the end of 1941.
So that Sweden would have allowed German recruitment seems in this case to be a POV without any foundation, and if no real source of this claim can be produced it should be taken out of the article. Qazper 15:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed the sentence "(As it was allowed to recruit from non-belligerent Sweden and Spain. In fact, Germany didn't recruit from countries formally allied with it.)" after one weeks wait for any decent source of the claim. The claim seems to false in its entirety since AFAIK the Spanish did their own recruiting (and even some conscripting) to fill the Blue Division, and Germany did recruit from at least one formal ally, the Repubblica Sociale Italiana, to form the 29th Waffen Grenadier Division aka Legione SS Italiana. Qazper 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Returned the sentences and added a reference. Removed although "was allowed..." as it is clear that no formal allowance was given from the government of Sweden to the action. It was a German policy up to the surrender of Italy at 1943 that no recruitment were conducted on allied countries, and similarly recruitment of Romanians and Bulgarians started only after they had made ceasefire with the Allies. --Whiskey 22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Good changes :) Qazper 09:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-belligerence definitions

[edit] WPMILHIST Assessment

Though is quite a bit of content here, it does not appear to be well-organized. The primary definition and discussion of general applications and usage should be organized and expanded, the WWII examples consolidated. LordAmeth (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)