A Frozen Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939-1940

When the Russians demanded territorial concessions from the Finns that would have made them a vassal of Stalin, they steadfastly refused. With a population smaller than the Red Army (3.5 v. 4.0 million) and no armor they fought the Russians toe to toe for over three months. Inflicting almost 1 million casualties by the end of the War, the Finns were forced to give up mostly uninhabited northern forests, but also the lands around Lake Ladoga. Most of this land had been settled by Finns for over four hundred years, but it protected the northern approaches to Leningrad.

Stalin, having destroyed over three-quarters of the officer corp of the Red Army during the purges of the 1930s, was left with nothing but syncophants and yes-men. That the Red Army performed so poorly was a combination of fear of initiative and the standard of attacking head-on against any defensive obstacle. The Russians would literally beat you to death with their bodies, piling up corpses like cordwood.

What finally beat the Finns, wasn't so much force of arms as it was just brute force. By the time the Russians finally broke through the final Finnish defensive line, over half the Finnish Army had been killed or wounded. This percentage of Finnish manpower would have been equal to 2.6 million American casualties (base on the US population at that time).

The poor performance of the Red Army was one of the reasons that the Germans thought they could destroy them in a short time and force the Russians to sue for peace. What the Germans forgot to take into consideration was that Stalin would fight to the last drop of Russian blood. The Red Army theory was that even if they lost 2 men for every German they killed, at the end they would still have an army of ten million and there wouldn't be a Wehrmacht soldier left. (As Stalin said, the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is just a statistic.)

Zeb Kantrowitz

The Winter War was a legend from a time when the world needed legends. Finland's sturdy yeomen standing in defense of their homeland against immeasurable numbers and performing the unique achievement of killing enough Russians to give even Stalin a feeling of indigestion. In our iconoclastic age it comes as a bit of a supprise that much of the legend is in fact true. There is another side, as there always is. War is always nasty, brutish and uncomfortable and our age is not unreasonably suspicious of all that seems to obscure that. Arguably Finland's later renewal of the war was an unnecessary aggression, though equally arguably it was provoked because the arrogance,ambition,and ruthlessness of Russia's leaders made it extremely plausible that Russia still intended to swallow Finland. Even Finland's defection gives a very slight hint of dishonor for those with an odd sense of quixotism. Though given their "allies" nature, not more then a whiff. In any case no nation can be expected to commit suicide for the sake of an ally of convenience. And the thought of the politically inexperienced Finnish "rustics" shrewdly outdeviling the devil brings a touch of amusement. The Finns managed to outfight and outwit both Russia and Germany and were the only country in Europe to do that successfully.
Some have even said that Stalin only wanted enough territory to protect Russia, territory which Finland could live without. I find that hard to believe. Stalin's record shows that he kept pushing as far as he could get away with and stopped when he could no longer. Or to put it another way Finland was a bush that could spare a few flowers but unless it proved it could stick Stalins hand full of thorns it would lose all it's flowers.
All that is of course the concern of the high and mighty. As far as ordinary Finns were concerned their own leaderships possible failings were beside the point. They had built an admirable society under very harsh circumstances and it was worth fighting to protect. And fight they did. In doing so they not only protected their own country but proved that the people of democratic countries are not thereby effete and that tyranny could indeed be resisted. They gave hope when hope was needed and for that alone we should thank them.
Someone said that they found Mannerheim a dull character. Personally I found him fascinating. He reminded me a lot of Captain von Trapp as played by Christopher Plummer and had similarities to both the movie one and the real one(especially the movie one). He had the curious attraction of several of the aristocrats of the time that comes from a mixture of nostalgia, fairy tale romance, and "lost causedness". He served Finland rather then Democracy. And the things he stood for had their flaws. However his ideas were far superior to the prevailing ideas of political idolatry that threatend both his way and Finland's way. He was intensely masculine just as the Finnish people were, but in a patrician rather then a plebian way. The Finns were men and he was a man to lead men. Or as the writter said he was a nobleman who was also a noble man. And if the Ancient Regime had had more like him, it would not have been what it was and there might have been no need to overthrow it.
Despite what has been said, Mannerheim would make a great movie hero. He had a fascinating life, from his Indiana Jones like spy mission to Central Asia, to his service in previous wars, to his present service. He new everyone that was "worth knowing." His hauteur might be hard to work with but could be done if acted well and it would be lovely watching him turn it on some arrogant SS Staffie as indeed he did on one or two occasions.
All that aside, Frozen Hell was a fascinating book about a fascinating campaign. I am glad to own it.

I became interested in the Winter War while reading one of the excellent Time-Life World War II books, "Battles for Scandinavia. A search led to "A Frozen Hell", a book with much more detail and very well written. While the Time Life book is full of photos, maps, illustrations, and artwork you are left wishing form a more detailed narrative that "A Frozen Hell" provides.

One quibble. Even though "A Frozen Hell" has 14 maps, I was often frustrated when many of the cities and other locations described in the narrative are often not shown on the maps.

My mother was evacuated from Karelia at the age of 15 years and my father fought in the Winter War. My Finnish parents emigrated to South Africa and I was born here. Therefore my dominant language is english and my sons speak no Finnish. This is a wonderful book to pass on this story to my english speaking children. It is easy to understand and interesting to read. It reads like an entertaining novel. I also hope that it can bring this story and the case for the return of Karelia to the wider world.

A good read but badly needs a post-Cold War update. This book is about a conflict between Russia and Finland, but the only Russian source listed in the "Notes on the Sources" (there is no bibliography) is the English translation of the memoirs of Khruschev, who didn't even participate in the Winter War. Other than a few short, atmospheric accounts by Russian soldiers taken from earlier English or Finnish books, no other Russian source is cited, leaving us almost wholly dependent on Finnish historians and the memoirs of Finnish commanders. This is not a scholarly approach.
Maybe there just weren't any other Russian sources available; or maybe they were only available in Russian (which the author does not know, although he is rightly proud of having mastered Finnish). All that may have been a tolerable excuse in 1991 (when this book came out), but the Russian state archives are now open to all, and certainly much more material has been translated into English in the past 16 years. At the very least, Trotter could speak to some Russians. He found Finnish veterans to interview, and I bet some of their Russian counterparts can also still be found among the WWII veterans who totter around public parks in Russia every May 9.
But to find, you have to look, and what's disappointing is that I have no sense the author feels any need to seek out more significant sources from the other side.